This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1127
entitled 'Smithsonian Institution: Funding Challenges Affect
Facilities' Conditions and Security, Endangering Collections' which was
released on September 28, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2007:
Smithsonian Institution:
Funding Challenges Affect Facilities' Conditions and Security,
Endangering Collections:
GAO-07-1127:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1127, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) is the world’s largest museum
complex and research organization. Its annual operating and capital
program revenues come from its own private trust fund assets and
federal appropriations, with the majority of funds for facilities
coming from federal appropriations. In 2005, GAO reported that the
Smithsonian’s current funding would not be sufficient to cover its
estimated $2.3 billion in facilities projects through 2013 and
recommended that the Smithsonian Board of Regents, its governing body,
develop and implement a funding plan. As requested, GAO described
changes in the condition of the Smithsonian’s facilities and estimate
for project costs since 2005, analyzed the Smithsonian’s steps taken
and challenges regarding protecting and managing its real property
portfolio, and assessed the Smithsonian’s efforts to develop and
implement strategies to fund its facilities’ projects. GAO reviewed
relevant documents and interviewed officials from the Smithsonian and
other organizations.
What GAO Found:
The Smithsonian has made some facilities improvements since our 2005
report, but the continued deterioration of many facilities has caused
further access restrictions and has threatened collections. The
Smithsonian’s cost estimate for facilities projects has increased to
$2.5 billion from $2.3 billion in April 2005. For example, a lack of
temperature and humidity control at National Air and Space Museum
storage facilities has caused corrosion to historic airplanes and
increased the cost of restoring these items for exhibit.
While the Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its
assets, it faces challenges related to ensuring that museum and
facility directors are aware of security information and related to
funding constraints. Some directors’ lack of awareness of security
information limits their ability to respond to changes in the security
of their facilities. Also, some museum and facility directors stated
that in the absence of more security guards, some cases of vandalism
and theft have occurred. In addition, the Smithsonian has made
significant strides in improving its real property portfolio
management, such as improving its real property data and using
performance metrics. However, the Smithsonian has omitted privately
funded projects from its capital plan, making it challenging for the
Smithsonian and stakeholders to comprehensively assess the funding and
scope of projects.
To address GAO’s April 2005 recommendation regarding implementing a
funding plan for its facilities projects, the Board of Regents created
an ad-hoc committee, which, after reviewing nine options, requested
increased federal funding. We found that some of the Smithsonian’s
evaluations of the nine funding options were limited in that they did
not always provide complete analysis, fully explain specific
assumptions, or benchmark with other organizations. Also, some options
were dismissed because independently they would not generate enough
revenue, but the evaluations do not consider combining options to
increase revenues.
Figure: Facilities Problems Include Leaks in the National Zoological
Park's Sea Lion Pool and the Roof of the National Museum of African
Art:
[See PDF for image]
Sources (left to right): GAO and Smithsonian Institution.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Smithsonian (1) increase awareness of security
issues; (2) include privately funded projects in its capital plan, and
(3) comprehensively analyze funding options and report to Congress and
the Office of Management and Budget on a funding strategy. The
Smithsonian concurred with the report’s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
GAO-07-1127. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Despite Some Improvements, Deteriorating Facilities Have Caused Further
Problems, and Cost Estimate for Facilities Projects Has Increased:
The Smithsonian Follows Many Key Security Practices to Protect Its
Assets but Faces Communication and Funding Challenges:
The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Real Property Portfolio
Management but Faces Challenges Related to Funding Constraints and Its
Capital Plan:
The Smithsonian Has Taken Some Steps to Develop and Implement Funding
Strategies, but Its Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives Has Been
Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Smithsonian's Efforts to Implement Key Security Practices:
Appendix III: Comments from the Smithsonian Institution:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Buildings Disposed of by the Smithsonian Since 2005, Including
Elements of Decision and Proceeds, as Described by Smithsonian
Officials:
Table 2: Smithsonian Facilities Capital and Maintenance Appropriations,
Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Table 3: Funding and Total Cost of Smithsonian Capital Projects That
Have Received Private Funds for Capital Costs, Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Table 4: Nine Funding Options Evaluated by the Ad-Hoc Committee on
Facilities Revitalization:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of Smithsonian Institution Owned and Leased
Facilities:
Figure 2: Growth in Major Facilities Owned by the Smithsonian
Institution, in Square Feet:
Figure 3: Key Security Practices in Facility Protection:
Figure 4: Smithsonian Operating Revenue, Fiscal Year 2006:
Figure 5: Obsolete Electrical Systems at the National Air and Space
Museum:
Figure 6: Plastic Sheeting Covers Native American Boats at the Cultural
Resources Center to Prevent Water Damage:
Figure 7: Plastic Sheeting Put Up to Protect Collection Items from
Water Damage in a Storage Area of the Quadrangle Complex:
Figure 8: The National Zoo's Invertebrate House, Located at the Back of
the Reptile Discovery Center:
Figure 9: Ape House Exhibit at the National Zoo:
Figure 10: Sea Lion Pool at the National Zoo:
Figure 11: Leaking Skylight over the Museum of African Art:
Figure 12: Security Officer Levels at Smithsonian Museums and
Facilities, 2003 Compared with 2007:
Figure 13: Timeline of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Facilities
Revitalization Key Events:
Figure 14: Closing All Smithsonian Museums on the National Mall for 3
Days a Week:
Abbreviations:
Air and Space Museum: National Air and Space Museum:
American Art Museum: Smithsonian American Art Museum:
Board of Regents: Smithsonian Board of Regents:
CCTV: closed circuit television cameras:
Cooper-Hewitt Museum: Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Forest Service: Department of Agriculture's Forest Service:
Freer Gallery: Freer Gallery of Art:
FRPC: Federal Real Property Council:
IRC: Independent Review Committee:
ISC: Interagency Security Committee:
MOMA: Museum of Modern Art:
Museum of African American: National Museum of African:
History and Culture: American History and Culture:
Museum of African Art: National Museum of African Art:
Museum of American History: National Museum of American History Kenneth
E. Behring Center:
Museum of Natural History: National Museum of Natural History:
Museum of the American Indian: National Museum of the American Indian:
NAPA: National Academy of Public Administration:
National Zoo: National Zoological Park:
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act:
NJTTF: National Joint Terrorism Task Force:
NPS: National Park Service:
OFEO: Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPS: Office of Protection Services Portrait Gallery National Portrait
Gallery:
RCM: reliability centered maintenance:
Reynolds Center: Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and
Portraiture:
Sackler Gallery: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery:
Smithsonian: Smithsonian Institution:
Udvar-Hazy Center: National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
Center:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 28, 2007:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
Committee on Rules and Administration: United States Senate:
The Honorable Norman Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Committee
on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) has been referred to as
America's museum, as its museums hold and provide access to
irreplaceable national collections in American and natural history,
art, and other areas. The act establishing the Smithsonian in 1846
provided, among other things, that the business of the Smithsonian be
conducted by a board of regents. Since its beginning, the Smithsonian
has evolved into the world's largest museum complex and research
organization; two of its museums on the National Mall in Washington,
D.C., are the most visited in the world. The Smithsonian has 19 museums
and galleries, 9 science centers, a zoological park, and various other
facilities it uses to accomplish its mission: "the increase and
diffusion of knowledge among men." In recent years, the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the Smithsonian, and we have
reported on the deterioration of the Smithsonian's facilities and the
threat posed by this deterioration to the Smithsonian's collections.
For example, in April 2005, we reported that the failing condition and
closure of the Smithsonian's 1881 Arts and Industries building on the
National Mall was the most significant example of a broad decline in
the condition of the Smithsonian's facility portfolio.[Footnote 1]
Moreover, we reported that structural deterioration and failing systems
in Smithsonian museums and other facilities presented serious long-term
risks to the Smithsonian's collections. A 2001 report by NAPA found
that prior to 2000, the Smithsonian had underestimated its
revitalization needs, which were significantly larger than were
identified in its budget requests.
The Smithsonian's annual operating and capital program revenues come
from its own private trust fund assets and federal appropriations;
however, the majority of funds for facilities come from the
Smithsonian's federal appropriations. Six percent of the Smithsonian's
annual operating revenue--about $58.2 million in fiscal year 2006--
comes from unrestricted private funds, and the Smithsonian's Board of
Regents has the authority to spend these unrestricted private funds for
various purposes, including facilities.[Footnote 2] We reported in
April 2005 that the Smithsonian's trust fund assets and federal
appropriations at current levels would not be sufficient to cover the
Smithsonian's estimated $2.3 billion in revitalization, construction,
and maintenance projects--which include security-related projects--from
2005 through 2013. Given this significant funding challenge, we
recommended that the Smithsonian Board of Regents (Board of Regents)
develop and implement a strategic funding plan to address the
Smithsonian's facilities projects. In April 2007, we testified that
based on preliminary findings, the Smithsonian's estimated costs for
facilities projects had increased.[Footnote 3] A June 2007 report
commissioned by the Board of Regents concluded that the Smithsonian had
become more dependent on federal funds from January 2000 through March
2007. As the Smithsonian's chief decision-making body, the Board of
Regents is responsible for the long- term stewardship of the
Smithsonian's mission, which includes maintaining the Smithsonian's
facilities and collections, as well as ensuring that the Smithsonian
has a funding strategy that provides sufficient funds to support these
activities.
The Smithsonian is not the only entity receiving federal funds that
faces challenges related to real property. We have found over the years
that many federal agencies face long-standing challenges involving
deteriorating facilities and protecting assets in the post-September 11
environment, among other things. These findings have led to our
inclusion of real property management on our high-risk list of federal
programs since January 2003.[Footnote4] To address the problems we
identified related to our high-risk designation, the administration
added a real property initiative to the President's Management Agenda,
and the president issued Executive Order 13327, which implements the
real property initiative by outlining several requirements intended to
help agencies accurately account for, maintain, and manage their real
property assets. These requirements include, among other things,
systematizing agency procedures and actions related to asset management
through the development of an asset management plan and developing and
using a complete and accurate real property data inventory and
performance metrics. Although the Smithsonian is not covered by the
executive order, the administration has encouraged all agencies and
federal entities to use the executive order and related asset
management principles as guidance.
In light of ongoing concerns over the Smithsonian's particular
challenges in these areas, to address your request, we answered the
following questions: (1) How has the condition of the Smithsonian's
facilities and cost estimate for facilities projects changed since our
2005 report? (2) What steps has the Smithsonian taken to protect its
assets, and what challenges has it experienced in doing so? (3) What
steps has the Smithsonian taken to improve the management of its real
property portfolio, and what challenges has it experienced in doing so?
And (4) to what extent has the Smithsonian developed and implemented
strategies to fund its revitalization, construction, and maintenance
projects?
To obtain information on how the condition of the Smithsonian's
facilities has changed since our 2005 report, we interviewed the museum
and facility directors[Footnote 5] of 14 Smithsonian facilities. To
obtain information on new facilities projects, problems with
facilities, and adverse effects, if any on collections, we toured 8
facilities identified by the Smithsonian as having major revitalization
projects or additional facilities-related problems since our April 2005
report. To determine how the Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities
projects has changed since our 2005 report, we reviewed the
Smithsonian's revised cost estimate for major revitalization,
construction, and maintenance projects from fiscal year 2005 through
fiscal year 2013. To obtain information on the steps the Smithsonian
has taken to protect its assets and the challenges it has experienced,
we reviewed documents such as the Smithsonian's 2005 All Hazards Risk
Assessment Report and 2002 Disaster Management Program Master Plan, and
the federal government's Interagency Security Committee's (ISC) key
security practices. To obtain information on the steps the Smithsonian
has taken to improve the management of its real property portfolio, we
reviewed our prior work on this issue as well as Smithsonian documents
related to asset management, capital planning, and master planning. To
determine the extent to which the Smithsonian developed and implemented
strategies to fund its revitalization, construction, and maintenance
projects, we reviewed documents used by the Board of Regents to select
a funding strategy and interviewed members of the Board of Regents.
To address all of the above objectives, we also interviewed appropriate
Smithsonian officials and conducted site visits at organizations in
California and New York with characteristics similar to those of the
Smithsonian, where we reviewed relevant documents, toured facilities,
and interviewed officials. We visited the following organizations with
characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian: in California, the
California Academy of Sciences, the California State University Office
of the Chancellor, San Jose State University, San Francisco State
University, the University of California Office of the President, the
University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at
San Francisco, and the Zoological Society of San Diego, including the
Wild Animal Park; in New York, the American Museum of Natural History
and the Museum of Modern Art. We selected California because several
facilities' management experts recommended that a university system
with old buildings and geographically dispersed campuses would have
characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian, and in California
we could efficiently visit the University of California system and the
California State University system, both of which meet these criteria,
as well as a large and highly visited zoo and a science academy
undergoing a major capital construction project. We selected New York
so that we could efficiently go to two large and highly visited museums
with characteristics similar to those of some Smithsonian museums. We
conducted our work from September 2006 to September 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I
for a more detailed explanation of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The Smithsonian has made a number of facilities improvements since our
2005 report, but the continued deterioration of many facilities has
caused further access restrictions and has threatened collections, and
the Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities projects has increased.
The Smithsonian improved the condition of a number of facilities since
our 2005 report. For example, the Smithsonian completed its
revitalization of the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and
Portraiture (Reynolds Center), which houses the Smithsonian American
Art Museum (American Art Museum) and the National Portrait Gallery
(Portrait Gallery). The Smithsonian also completed the construction of
Pod 5, a fire-code-compliant space built to store alcohol-preserved
specimens of the National Museum of Natural History (Museum of Natural
History). Many of these specimens are currently stored within the
museum building on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in spaces
that do not meet fire-code standards. Collections are scheduled to be
moved to Pod 5 over the next 2 years. At the same time, problems with
the Smithsonian's facilities have resulted in additional access
restrictions and damage and have continued to threaten collections and
cause other problems, according to museum and facility directors:
* At the National Air and Space Museum (Air and Space Museum), power
capacity issues caused by inadequate electrical systems have forced the
museum to occasionally close galleries to visitors.
* A lack of temperature and humidity control at storage facilities
belonging to the Air and Space Museum has caused corrosion to historic
airplanes and increased the cost of restoring these items for exhibit.
* Problems with the condensate system that provides humidification to
the building housing the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (Sackler Gallery)
and National Museum of African Art (Museum of African Art) have caused
unpredictable leaks throughout the complex, threatening collections.
* Leaks in the National Zoo's sea lion and seal pools as of July 2007
were causing an average daily water loss of 110,000 gallons, with a
replacement cost of $297,000 annually.
According to Smithsonian officials, repairs to some of these problems
are scheduled to take place over the next several years. In light of
such problems, the Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities projects
from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2013 for which it expects to
receive federal funds has increased since April 2005 from about $2.3
billion to about $2.5 billion for the same time period. According to
Smithsonian officials, this estimate could increase further.
The Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its assets,
but it faces challenges related to ensuring that museum and facility
directors are aware of important security information and related to
funding constraints. The Smithsonian follows key security practices we
have identified in prior work,[Footnote 6] such as allocating resources
to manage risk by developing a risk assessment report and leveraging
security technology. In its risk assessment report, the Smithsonian
identified the primary risks to over 30 of its facilities and made key
risk reduction and mitigation recommendations. Despite these efforts,
we found that nine museum and facility directors we spoke with were
unaware of the contents of the Smithsonian's risk assessment report,
and many stated that on any given day, they do not know how many
security officers will show up at their facility. The Smithsonian's
Office of Protection Services (OPS) is responsible for operating
programs for security management at Smithsonian facilities. However,
some museum and facility directors' lack of awareness of the risk
assessment report limits their ability to work with OPS to identify,
monitor, and respond to changes in the security of their facilities.
Furthermore, some museum and facility directors cited an insufficient
number of security officers to protect assets due to funding
constraints. Smithsonian obligations for security have increased since
September 11, 2001, from $37 million in 2001 to a high of $67 million
in 2006, but certain needs have gone unaddressed. In addition, due to
funding constraints, the Smithsonian's two most visited museums have
experienced a 31 percent decrease in security officers since 2003, and
the overall number of security officers has decreased at a time when
the Smithsonian's square footage has increased. Some of the
Smithsonian's museum and facility directors said that in the absence of
more security officers, some cases of vandalism and theft have
occurred. In addition, two museum directors stated that it has become
more difficult for them to acquire collections on loan because lenders
have expressed concern with the lack of protection.
Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate for
facilities projects, the Smithsonian has taken steps to improve the
management of its real property portfolio but faces challenges related
to funding constraints and its capital plan. Several factors affect the
Smithsonian's efforts to manage its real property portfolio, including
historical preservation requirements. The Smithsonian's centralized
office for real property management, known as the Office of Facilities
Engineering and Operations (OFEO), has made significant strides in
several areas related to real property portfolio management, including
improving real property data and developing performance metrics on, for
example, maintenance and customer satisfaction. Many of these steps
incorporate the administration's real property guidance. In addition,
the Smithsonian has refined its capital planning process to improve its
real property portfolio management. At the same time, however, funding
constraints have presented considerable challenges to OFEO's efforts.
For example, while a majority of museum and facility directors stated
that OFEO does a good job of prioritizing and addressing problems with
the amount of funds available, several museum and facility directors
expressed frustration that projects at their facilities had been
delayed, and OFEO officials stated that a lack of sufficient funds for
maintenance has limited their ability to optimally maintain equipment,
leading to more expensive failures later on. OFEO has worked to justify
an increase in federal funds for facilities. However, although private
funds made up 39 percent of the Smithsonian's capital funds for
facilities projects for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Smithsonian
has omitted privately funded projects from its capital plan and its
estimate of $2.5 billion for facilities projects through 2013, making
it challenging for the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities projects.
Smithsonian officials noted that the majority of these private funds
were donated for the construction of new facilities--namely, the
National Museum of the American Indian (Museum of the American Indian)
and the National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
(Udvar-Hazy Center)--and there is no assurance that private funds would
make up 39 percent of the Smithsonian's funds for capital projects in
future years. Other organizations we visited include both private and
public investments in their capital plans to inform their stakeholders
about the scope of projects and the extent of such partnerships used to
fund capital needs.
Funding constraints are clearly a common denominator with regard to the
Smithsonian's security and real property management, but the
Smithsonian Board of Regents' efforts to develop and implement
strategies to fund its facilities revitalization, construction, and
maintenance needs have been limited. The Board of Regents has taken
some steps to address our 2005 recommendation regarding a strategic
funding plan for facilities projects. After reviewing materials
prepared by Smithsonian management that identified and evaluated nine
options to address facilities projects--such as establishing a special
exhibition fee and issuing a facilities revitalization bond--an ad-hoc
committee established by the Board of Regents decided to request an
additional $100 million annually in federal funds for facilities over
its current appropriation for 10 years, starting in 2008, for a total
of an additional $1 billion. To implement this recommendation, in
September 2006, several members of the Board of Regents and the
Secretary of the Smithsonian met with the President to discuss the
issue of increased federal funding for the Smithsonian's facilities.
According to two members of the Board of Regents, this option was
selected because the Board of Regents believed that the revitalization,
construction, and maintenance of Smithsonian facilities are federal
responsibilities. According to Smithsonian officials, it is the
position of the Smithsonian, based on an historical understanding, that
the maintenance and revitalization of facilities are federal
responsibilities. Smithsonian officials pointed out that as early as
the 1850s, the federal government has provided appropriations to the
Smithsonian for the care and presentation of objects belonging to the
United States. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal
included an increase of about $44 million over the Smithsonian's fiscal
year 2007 appropriation, far short of what the Smithsonian requested,
and it is not clear how much of this proposed increase would be used to
support facilities. Our analysis of the Smithsonian's evaluations of
the eight other funding options, including the potential benefits and
drawbacks of each, showed that the evaluations were limited in that
they did not always include a complete analysis, fully explain specific
assumptions, or benchmark with other organizations, items crucial to
determining each option's potential viability. For example, the
Smithsonian's analysis of a general admission fee option included an
adjustment of annual net gains to account for losses in revenue at
restaurants and stores. However, the Smithsonian's materials did not
discuss whether other museums had experienced such losses after
establishing admission fees. We spoke with six other museums and a
zoological park that stated that instituting or increasing admission
fees did not decrease the amount of money visitors spent in restaurants
and stores. In addition, although several of the nine options are
dismissed because independently the options would not generate the
amount of revenue required to address the Smithsonian's facilities
projects, the evaluation did not consider the potential of combining
options to generate more revenue.
Clearly, the Smithsonian is at a crossroads, with significant security
and facilities projects and funding constraints that have limited its
ability to complete these projects in a timely manner. The Smithsonian
also faces communication challenges regarding security, and its
omission of private funds from its capital plan and cost estimate has
reduced the ability of the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities projects. We
are therefore making recommendations designed to improve communication
and information about security and to improve the comprehensiveness of
the Smithsonian's capital plan and cost estimate. Moreover, if the
Smithsonian does not develop a viable strategy to address its growing
cost estimate for facilities projects, its facilities and collections
face increased risk, and the ability of the Smithsonian to meet its
mission will likely decline. We are therefore recommending that the
Smithsonian Board of Regents perform a more comprehensive analysis of
alternative funding strategies beyond principally using federal funds
to support facilities and submit a report to Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) describing a funding strategy for current
and future facilities needs. According to two members of the Board of
Regents, the board recognizes that it may need to undertake further
analysis of the funding options presented and consider additional
funding options; and in June 2007, the Board voted to turn the ad-hoc
committee into a standing committee on facilities revitalization. These
members of the Board of Regents also stated they recognized the need to
work closely with Congress on this issue in the future. However, these
regents told us that in light of other priorities, the board has not
yet had time to fully reconsider funding strategies. In commenting on a
draft of this report, the Smithsonian concurred with our
recommendations and provided additional information, which we have
incorporated where appropriate. The Smithsonian also expressed concerns
about several issues in the report. A summary of these concerns and our
responses to them can be found in Agency Comments and Our Evaluation.
The Smithsonian's full comments and our more detailed response can be
found in Appendix III.
Background:
Congress established the Smithsonian in 1846 to administer a large
bequest left to the United States by James Smithson, an English
scientist, for the purpose of establishing, in Washington, D.C., an
institution "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." In
accepting Smithson's bequest on behalf of the nation, Congress pledged
the "faith of the United States" to carry out the purpose of the
trust.[Footnote 7] To that end, the act establishing the Smithsonian
provided for the administration of the trust, independent of the
government itself, by a Board of Regents and a Secretary, who were
given broad discretion in the use of the trust funds. The Board of
Regents currently consists of nine private citizens as well as members
of all three branches of the federal government, including the Chief
Justice of the United States, the Vice President, three senators, and
three representatives.[Footnote 8] As the Smithsonian's chief decision-
making body, the Board of Regents is responsible for ensuring the
maintenance of the facilities and collections of the Smithsonian
Institution. This includes ensuring that the Smithsonian has sufficient
funds, from either public or private sources, to support these
activities.
Over the last 160 years, the Smithsonian's facilities inventory has
expanded to include 19 museums and galleries, 9 research centers, a
zoo, and other facilities--most located in or near Washington, D.C.
These facilities include more than 700 buildings and structures, owned
and leased, ranging from major museum buildings to storage buildings
and storage sheds (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Location of Smithsonian Institution Owned and Leased
Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
Note: Facilities under 50,000 square feet are not represented.
[End of figure]
The major buildings owned by the Smithsonian range in age from about
160 years old to less than 1 year old, with most of the facilities'
growth occurring since the 1960s (see fig. 2). The Smithsonian's growth
will continue, with the construction of an aircraft restoration area--
phase II of the Udvar-Hazy Center[Footnote 9]--and the design and
construction of a National Museum of African American History and
Culture (Museum of African American History and Culture), authorized by
Congress in 2003. Beyond this, some members in both houses of Congress
have expressed interest in developing a National Museum of the American
Latino.[Footnote 10]
Figure 2: Growth in Major Facilities Owned by the Smithsonian
Institution, in Square Feet:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
Note: This figure tracks the square footage for all owned and leased
buildings as they were added to the inventory over time. Only the major
facilities are named in the figure, although the square footage of
smaller buildings is included. Also, in November 2005, the Smithsonian
Institution sold the Victor Building.
[End of figure]
The physical security of federal facilities, including those on the
National Mall, has been a more urgent governmentwide concern after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We have issued several
reports, including our November 2004 report, related to improving the
physical security of federal facilities.[Footnote 11] In that report,
we assessed the actions of the ISC in coordinating federal facility
protection efforts and delineated a set of six key practices that had
emerged from the collective practices of federal agencies to provide a
framework for guiding agencies' facility protection efforts.[Footnote
12] These key practices are briefly described in figure 3.
Figure 3: Key Security Practices in Facility Protection:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The Smithsonian significantly altered its facilities management
approach in the wake of a 2001 report by NAPA. NAPA's report
highlighted the need for major changes in the Smithsonian's facilities
management practices to help address problems with its facilities, and
the report included a number of recommendations. In March 2001, before
NAPA issued its report, the Smithsonian had hired a new director to
lead the reorganization of the facilities program. With the leadership
of this director, in fiscal year 2004 the Smithsonian reorganized and
centralized its facilities program under the OFEO, a new, flatter
facilities management organization. OFEO assumed responsibility for all
facility-related programs and budgets for the Smithsonian. OFEO
consists of six offices responsible for different areas of facilities
management.[Footnote 13] One of these, OPS, is responsible for
operating programs for security management at Smithsonian facilities.
All OFEO offices report directly to the OFEO director and are funded
through one budget. OFEO received its first realigned budget in fiscal
year 2004.[Footnote 14] In our 2005 report, we found that the
Smithsonian had implemented the majority of NAPA's recommendations.
Although the Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality with a private
endowment, it is largely funded by federal appropriations. In fiscal
year 2006, the Smithsonian's operating revenues were about $947
million, of which about 65 percent were from federal appropriations. As
shown in figure 4, the Smithsonian's federal appropriations are divided
into two categories, both of which include some facilities-related
funds. The facilities capital appropriation, which was about $98.5
million in fiscal year 2006, provides funds for construction and
revitalization projects. The salaries and expenses appropriation, which
was about $516.6 million in fiscal year 2006, includes funding for the
program activities of each museum and research center; rents;
utilities; and facilities' operations, maintenance, and security costs.
The remaining 29 percent of the Smithsonian's operating revenues in
fiscal year 2006 was from its private trust funds (private funds),
which are also divided into two categories: restricted and
unrestricted. Restricted trust funds include such items as gifts from
individuals and corporations that specify the purpose of the funds.
Generally, restricted funds support a particular exhibit or program, or
are used to manage the collections or support research projects.
Restricted funds have also been provided for some facilities'
construction and enhancements related to revitalization projects.
Unrestricted trust funds include income from investment earnings and
net proceeds from business activities, and can be used to support any
Smithsonian activity. The Smithsonian typically has used unrestricted
trust funds, which in 2006 represented 6 percent of the Smithsonian's
total operating income, for fundraising, some salary costs, and central
administration costs. Although the Smithsonian can use unrestricted
trust funds for any purpose consistent with the Smithson Trust and
therefore could use them for facilities revitalization and maintenance,
it has not done so. Smithsonian officials stated that the unrestricted
trust fund budget is small and that if these salary and central
administration costs were not paid for with unrestricted trust funds,
the Smithsonian would have to use federal funds or eliminate positions
or programs to cover these expenses.
Figure 4: Smithsonian Institution Operating Revenue, Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Smithsonian Institution data.
[End of figure]
In June 2007, at the request of the Board of Regents, a committee
called the Independent Review Committee (IRC) issued a report of its
examination of the former Smithsonian secretary's compensation and
expenses and related board governance. The report found that private
funds raised annually from donors declined over the former secretary's
tenure, from January 2000 through March 2007. In addition, the IRC
found that business revenue also dropped during the former secretary's
tenure, while funds from federal appropriations and governmental grants
increased more than 60 percent. As a result, the IRC concluded that the
Smithsonian became more dependent on federal funds during the former
secretary's tenure.[Footnote 15] Also in June 2007, the Board of
Regents' Governance Committee issued a report and recommendations to
strengthen the Board of Regents' oversight of the Smithsonian. One of
several recommendations to the Board of Regents was that its ad-hoc
Committee on Facilities Revitalization should become a standing
committee in order to underscore the Board of Regents' commitment to
resolving the Smithsonian's April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion for
facilities projects.
While Congress has authorized major new museums and facilities,
Congress has moved away from fully funding the construction of these
facilities beginning in 1982. At that time, Congress authorized $36.5
million for the construction of the Museum of African Art and a Center
for Eastern Art[Footnote 16] and required that the Smithsonian pay for
the balance of the project with other funds. In 1989, Congress required
that not more than two-thirds of the total cost of the Museum of the
American Indian come from federal appropriations. More recently, in
2003, Congress also required that 50 percent of the cost to construct
the Museum of African American History and Culture come from nonfederal
sources and the other 50 percent from federal appropriations.
Despite Some Improvements, Deteriorating Facilities Have Caused Further
Problems, and Cost Estimate for Facilities Projects Has Increased:
The Smithsonian has improved the condition of a number of facilities
since our 2005 report, such as the revitalization of the Reynolds
Center and parts of the National Zoo. However, problems with the
Smithsonian's facilities since 2005 have continued to cause access
restrictions and damage, and continue to threaten collections.
Moreover, many long-term facilities problems remain. According to
Smithsonian officials, repairs to some of these problems are scheduled
over the next several years. At the same time, the Smithsonian's cost
estimate for facilities projects through fiscal year 2013 has increased
since April 2005, from $2.3 billion to $2.5 billion for the same time
period.
The Smithsonian Improved the Condition of a Number of Facilities Since
2005:
Since our 2005 report, the Smithsonian has improved the condition of a
number of its facilities through revitalization, construction, and
repair efforts. For example, it completed a $238 million revitalization
of the Reynolds Center, which houses the American Art Museum and the
Portrait Gallery. These museums were reopened to the public in July
2006. The revitalization included upgrading the building's systems,
such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, electrical, and
plumbing, and adding life and safety upgrades. It also included a
historical renovation of the building. As part of this renovation, for
example, ruined encausted tiles on one floor were replaced with new
tiles matching the original tiles, and a skylight that had been covered
over for many years was opened up and restored. The renovation, which,
according to Smithsonian officials, made 60,000 square feet of building
space previously used for storage or staff functions available for
public use, also included several upgrades to the building's original
space--such as a conservation center and an auditorium--that were paid
for with private funds. In addition, the Smithsonian completed the
revitalization of one section of the National Zoo (the Fujifilm Giant
Panda Habitat and Asia Trail) in October 2006 and is in the process of
further revitalizations at the National Zoo as well as major
revitalizations at the National Museum of American History Kenneth E.
Behring Center (Museum of American History), which is currently closed
for revitalization, and the Museum of Natural History.
In addition, the Smithsonian completed construction of a new storage
facility known as Pod 5, which is located at the Museum Support Center
at the Suitland, Maryland, campus. Pod 5 was built to provide a fire-
code-compliant space to store and conduct research on alcohol-preserved
specimens of the Museum of Natural History, many of which are currently
stored within the museum building on the National Mall in Washington,
D.C., in spaces that do not meet fire-code standards. Construction was
completed in April 2007, and according to Smithsonian officials,
collections are scheduled to be moved to Pod 5 over the next 2 years.
The Smithsonian also made some improvements to facilities since 2005
through repairs. For example, according to the director of the Freer
Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (Freer and Sackler
Galleries), some external leaks along the perimeter of the Sackler
Gallery have been eliminated by the installation of copper flashing.
Problems with the Smithsonian's Facilities Since 2005 Have Caused
Access Restrictions and Damage, and Continue to Threaten Collections:
Despite the progress the Smithsonian has made in improving a number of
its facilities since our 2005 report, the continued deterioration of
many facilities has caused further access restrictions and damage, and
continues to seriously threaten collections. According to Smithsonian
officials, repairs to some of the following problems are scheduled to
take place over the next several years. For example, the electrical
systems at the Air and Space Museum are scheduled to be replaced in
fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Access restrictions and damage caused
by facilities' conditions include the following:
* Power capacity issues caused by inadequate electrical systems have
forced the Air and Space Museum to occasionally close galleries to
visitors, according to the museum's director. The electrical systems at
the Air and Space museum were installed in 1975 and are obsolete and at
the end of their useful life. Complete replacement is needed to avoid
outages from equipment failure (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Obsolete Electrical Systems at the National Air and Space
Museum:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of figure]
* Recurring leaks in a Museum of African Art gallery that held an
exhibit called Art of the Personal Object forced the museum to
temporarily close the gallery several times from 2004 through 2006 and
take down part of the exhibit's collections until the leaks were
repaired, according to the museum's director. Smithsonian officials
noted that addressing such leaks is a regular maintenance issue.
* Chronic leaks in the roof of the Cultural Resources Center at
Suitland, Maryland, which was completed in 1998 and opened in 1999 to
hold collections of the Museum of the American Indian, have forced
staff to place plastic over several shelving units used to store
collections, such as a set of wooden boats that includes an Eskimo
kayak from Greenland and a rare Yahgan dugout canoe from Tierra del
Fuego, according to officials at this facility (see fig. 6).[Footnote
17] The plastic sheeting limits visitors' visual access to the boats
during open houses, which provide Native Americans and other groups
with access to the collections. One museum official stated that it was
also an embarrassment during open houses to have to explain that a roof
leak threatens collections. According to Smithsonian officials, the
building's roof is a spiral shape constructed with copper plate and
compositional panels soldered together. However, the soldered joints on
this complex roof design were not constructed well by the subcontractor
responsible for building the roof. According to a Smithsonian official,
the Smithsonian has worked with the company identified by the roofing
manufacturer to assume the warranty for the roof to make repairs. While
some of the costs to repair the roof were covered by warranty, others
were not and were paid for by the Smithsonian.
Figure 6: Plastic Sheeting Covering Native American Boats to Prevent
Water Damage at the Smithsonian Institution's Cultural Resources
Center:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of figure]
* A lack of temperature and humidity control at the Museum of Air and
Space's collection storage facilities in Suitland, Maryland, which have
large doors that do not seal and let in rain, has caused corrosion to
historic airplanes and other collections and increased the cost of
restoring these items for exhibit, according to museum officials.
In addition, two museum and facility directors told us of alarming
"near misses"--events related to inadequate facilities that could have
been catastrophic to collections had they occurred at different times.
According to Sackler Gallery officials, in October 2006, a major leak
unexpectedly occurred in a holding area used by the museum to store
exhibits on loan three weeks before $500 million worth of art arrived
to be held there. If the leak had occurred while the art was being
stored in this space, the art could have been destroyed. The leak was
caused by ongoing problems with the steam system used to provide
humidification to the Quadrangle complex, known as the condensate
system. Problems with this system--which the gallery shares with the
other facilities that make up the Quadrangle, including the Museum of
African Art--have caused unpredictable leaks throughout the complex
since 1993, continually threatening collections.[Footnote 18] Museum
officials stated that staff must routinely spend time each morning
searching for new leaks in order to move or cover collections to keep
them safe--time that could be used for programmatic efforts--and
several officials emphasized they have been lucky to avoid major damage
to the collections thus far. (See fig. 7.)
Figure 7: Plastic Sheeting Protecting Collection Items from Water
Damage in a Storage Area of the Smithsonian Institution's Quadrangle
Complex:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institute.
[End of figure]
In addition, the director of the National Zoo stated that because of
inadequate fire protection in the zoo's invertebrate house, a fire in
this building in 2006 did not set off a smoke alarm and could have
burned down the entire building--which also includes the reptile
discovery center. (See fig. 8.) The fire occurred during work hours and
was quickly put out by staff, but the director stated that the incident
alerted him to the potentially disastrous consequences of a fire at the
National Zoo to facilities and the animals living in them. Moreover,
the director stated that inadequate fire protection systems throughout
much of the National Zoo threaten the zoo's collections overall. For
example, most buildings do not have sprinklers, some fire hydrants do
not have enough water pressure for sprinkler systems that are in place,
and the zoo has no smoke evacuation systems designed to remove smoke
from a building in the case of a fire to prevent the death of people or
animals from smoke inhalation. The director stated that until the zoo's
fire protection systems are upgraded, there is the potential that a
fire could cause devastation similar to a 1995 fire at the Philadelphia
Zoo's primate house, which destroyed the building and killed 23
animals.
Figure 8: The National Zoo's Invertebrate House, Located at the Back of
the Reptile Discovery Center:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Similar problems at other Smithsonian facilities also threaten staff
and collections. For example, the director of the Freer and Sackler
Galleries stated that the Freer Gallery has also had leaks caused by
problems with its condensate system. In addition, according to the
Director of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, temporary
trailers that have been in place at the center for 3 to 35 years are
degrading and do not have fire suppression systems for life safety. At
one point, the floor fell out of a trailer due to decay, and the
collections landed on the ground; in other trailers, hallway floors
have fallen through.
Many Long-Term Facilities Problems Remain:
Other long-term facilities issues have caused additional problems for
the Smithsonian since 2005, including increasing the Smithsonian's
energy consumption and reducing its ability to carry out its mission.
Ongoing problems with facilities' conditions that museum directors
described to us include the following:
* The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden's building is not well
insulated and is the Smithsonian's largest (on a per-square-foot basis)
consumer of energy; in addition, its façade is leaking in places.
* The National Zoo is currently unable to provide many of its animals
with the state-of-the-art habitats required to meet the zoo's goal of
providing the highest quality animal care. Many of the zoo's animal
areas and facilities are in relatively poor condition. For example,
some of the zoo's facilities, including the bird house, small mammals
house, and the reptile house, were built in the 1920s, while others,
including the lion and tiger area and the ape house, were built in the
1960s. Many of these facilities do not meet current code requirements
(buildings are brought up to code at the time they are renovated) and
have many failing systems. (See fig. 9.)
Figure 9: Ape House Exhibit at the National Zoo:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of figure]
* In addition, according to officials at the National Zoo, the zoo's
sea lion and seal pools have major leaks the zoo has not been able to
fix without overhauling these exhibits. In January 2007, average daily
water loss from these two pools was 140,000 gallons, and the lost water
flowed into the Washington, D.C., sewer system. According to these
officials, preliminary site investigation of the pool indicated that
while the structures themselves appeared sound, the source of most of
the water loss was a result of the old underground supply and return
piping. Temporary supply lines were installed, and it appeared that the
amount of water loss in the seal pool was greatly decreased, reducing
the average daily water loss from the two pools to 110,000 gallons as
of July 2007, with a replacement cost of approximately $297,000. A
camera scoping system was being used to identify where to make
temporary repairs to the sea lion pool. (See fig 10.)
Figure 10: Sea Lion Pool at the National Zoo:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
* The Director of the Museum of African Art stated that leaks in a
skylight since 2005 have at times forced the museum to cover the
skylight with plastic to protect the building and its collections (see
fig. 11). The Director stated that the skylights have leaked for many
years, were repaired in 2004, and started leaking again in 2005. In
addition, according to the Director, in 2006, leaks in the roof
membrane of the pavilion by the main visitor entrance forced the museum
to put up plastic around the entrance and remove art objects from the
area, reducing the visual appeal of the museum's entrance.
Figure 11: Leaking Skylight over the Museum of African Art:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of figure]
The Smithsonian's collections storage, conservation, and research
facilities located in Suitland, Maryland, have many significant long-
term problems. These facilities not only hold collections but also are
actively used by Smithsonian staff and outside researchers for
conservation and research. For example, according to the Director of
the Museum Conservation Institute, which is the Smithsonian's center
for advanced scientific study of the care of museum collections, the
institute's facility has leaks, an inadequate electrical supply,
inadequate air handling, and a general lack of office and lab space
that makes it more difficult for the institute to carry out its
research and conservation work. The Museum Support Center, which
contains storage pods, research labs, and administrative space, has
inadequate air handlers for the pods that need replacing, and some of
the labs lack necessary equipment. For example, a lab that belongs to
the Museum of American History was temporarily turned over to the
American Art Museum while the Reynolds Center was being revitalized.
This museum stripped out existing exhaust hoods because it did not need
that type of equipment for the conservation work it was doing in the
lab. The lab has now been turned back over to the Museum of American
History, but funds are lacking to reinstall the exhaust hoods, limiting
the lab's usefulness as staff prepare new exhibits for the museum's
reopening after its current revitalization. Furthermore, a greenhouse
at Suitland that is used for botany research is no longer fully
enclosed, as several large glass panes have slipped from their frames,
leaving open spaces that allow conditioned air to escape, increasing
energy costs, and reducing the Smithsonian's ability to maintain the
optimal environment for the plants being studied.
According to Smithsonian officials, repairs to some of the major
problems with its facilities are scheduled to take place over the next
several years. For example, the electrical systems at the Air and Space
Museum are scheduled to be replaced in fiscal years 2007 through 2010,
a contract was recently awarded to address the problems with the
condensate system at the Quadrangle complex, and the Smithsonian's
capital plan includes projects intended to address the fire protection
problems at the National Zoo in fiscal years 2008 through 2010 and to
design and renew systems at the seal and sea lion exhibit in fiscal
years 2008 and 2009.
The Smithsonian's Estimated Cost for Facilities Projects through Fiscal
Year 2013 Has Increased Since 2005:
As of March 2007, the Smithsonian estimates it will need about $2.5
billion for revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects
identified from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2013, an increase
of about $200 million from its April 2005 estimate of about $2.3
billion for the same time period. The Smithsonian's estimated
revitalization and new construction costs are driven in part by the
need to modernize or add systems, such as fire detection and alarm and
security systems, and to comply with newer life safety code
requirements, such as those for handicapped accessibility to buildings
and restrooms. Maintenance costs include staff costs, minor repair and
maintenance projects, and other contracts, supplies, materials, and
equipment for Smithsonian's maintenance program. Smithsonian officials
stated that to update its 2005 estimate, they identified changes that
had occurred to the project cost figures used in the 2005 estimate and
then subtracted from the new total the appropriations the Smithsonian
had received for facilities revitalization, construction, and
maintenance projects for fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
According to Smithsonian officials, this estimate includes only costs
for which the Smithsonian expects to receive federal funds. Projects
that have been or are expected to be funded through the Smithsonian's
private trust funds were not included, although the Smithsonian has
used trust funds to support some facilities projects. For example, the
construction of Udvar-Hazy Center Phase I was funded through trust
funds.[Footnote 19] According to Smithsonian officials, maintenance
projects are not generally funded through trust funds.[Footnote 20]
The increase in the Smithsonian's cost estimate for revitalization,
construction, and maintenance projects through fiscal year 2013 from
about $2.3 billion in our April 2005 report to about $2.5 billion as of
March 2007 was due to several factors, according to Smithsonian
officials. For example, Smithsonian officials said that major increases
had occurred in projects for the National Zoo and the Museum of
American History because the two facilities had recently developed
master plans that identified additional requirements.[Footnote 21] In
addition, according to Smithsonian officials, estimates for
antiterrorism projects had increased due to adjustments for higher
costs for security-related projects at the Air and Space Museum.
According to Smithsonian officials, the increase also reflects the
effect of delaying corrective work in terms of additional damage and
escalation in construction costs.
According to Smithsonian officials, the Smithsonian's March 2007
estimate of about $2.5 billion could also increase, as the April 2005
estimate of about $2.3 billion was largely based on preliminary
assessments, and therefore, as Smithsonian completes more master plans,
more items will be identified that need to be done. Moreover, this
estimate does not include the estimated cost of constructing the Museum
of African American History and Culture, which was authorized by
Congress in 2003 and which the Smithsonian notionally estimates may
cost about $500 million--half of which is to be funded by federal
appropriations.
The Smithsonian Follows Many Key Security Practices to Protect Its
Assets but Faces Communication and Funding Challenges:
The Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its assets
but faces significant challenges ensuring that museum and facility
directors are aware of important security information. Moreover, due to
funding constraints, Smithsonian officials and some museum and facility
directors cited an insufficient number of security officers to protect
assets.
The Smithsonian Follows Key Security Practices:
We found that the Smithsonian follows key security practices we have
defined in prior work. For example, in order to allocate resources more
effectively to manage risk, in 2004, the Smithsonian contracted for an
all-hazards risk assessment report. This report, which includes
individual assessments for over 30 Smithsonian facilities, was
completed in 2005.[Footnote 22] These assessments identify the primary
risks to each facility and also describe the key observed
vulnerabilities and risks, as well as the key risk reduction and
mitigation recommendations proposed for each facility in order to help
the Smithsonian effectively prioritize security projects. As a
supplement to this report, in the spring of 2006, the contractor
completed a strategy that included specific recommendations on how to
use the Smithsonian's capital and maintenance funds to implement future
security projects and operational changes aimed at reducing the risk
for Smithsonian facilities.
In another example, the Smithsonian leverages security technology to
protect its assets by using technologies such as perimeter vehicle
barriers, closed circuit television cameras (CCTV), emergency voice
systems, window blast film, and electronic screening of visitors and
mail. According to a Smithsonian official, the technologies used for
its physical security plan--which primarily consists of two separate
programs for mitigating the risks to the Smithsonian's staff, visitors,
collection and facilities--allows OPS to extend the capabilities of
security staff and to improve facility security. For more information
on the Smithsonian's following of key security practices, see appendix
II.
The Smithsonian Faces Challenges in Ensuring That Museum and Facility
Directors Are Aware of Important Security Information:
Although the Smithsonian follows many key security practices, many
museum and facility directors we spoke to stated that they lacked
information on key security measures. For example, although OPS sent a
notification letter with the relevant section of the all-hazards risk
assessment report to museum and facility directors in late 2006, nine
museum and facility directors we spoke with told us they were unaware
of the results of this report for their facility and had not seen or
been briefed on this report. In contrast, five museum and facility
directors stated that they were aware of this report. OPS is
responsible for security at the Smithsonian's museums and facilities.
However, the lack of awareness of some museum and facility directors
about the all-hazards risk assessment report limits their ability to
work with OPS to identify, monitor, and respond to changes in the
security environment of their facilities.
In addition, many museum and facility directors stated that they did
not always receive useful information from OPS regarding security
officer staffing levels and other security decisions. For example,
although security officer staffing levels at museums and facilities can
vary on a daily basis due to attrition, absences, and OPS temporarily
moving security officers from one facility to another to address needs
with available staff, many museum and facility directors stated that on
any given day, they do not know how many security officers will show up
at their facility--information needed to oversee mitigation efforts and
manage security. These museum and facility directors stated that
knowing the security staff level at their museums is important for
several reasons, such as knowing which galleries do not have sufficient
protection from vandalism and limiting response time to emergencies.
For example, one director stated he once went to report an emergency to
a security officer at an established post. However, when he got to the
post, the security officer was absent, and the director had to search
for an alternate security officer. The director stated that had he
known that security officer levels were down that day, he could have
directly reported this emergency to a post where he knew an officer was
on duty, which would have reduced the emergency response time.
Also, some museum and facility directors stated that they do not know
when security upgrades are being installed at their facilities.
According to one museum director, about 1 year ago, contractors working
for OPS arrived at the museum without any prior communication with the
museum staff--including the museum's director or the assistant director
of protection services--to begin work installing a key card access
system. Staff were not supplied with key cards or trained in the use of
the new system; as a result, once the system was installed, they were
denied access to critical areas of the building, such as offices and
collection storage areas.
Due to Funding Constraints, Some Museum and Facility Directors Cite
Insufficient Number of Security Staff to Protect Assets:
Funding constraints have also been a challenge to the Smithsonian's
security efforts, according to museum and facility directors, some of
whom stated that, in the absence of more security officers, some cases
of vandalism and theft have occurred. According to OPS, 35 cases of
vandalism were reported from January 2005 through August 2007. OPS
officials stated that funding constraints have affected its ability to
retain and recruit security officers. Following September 11, 2001, the
Smithsonian's security costs significantly increased as a result of the
mitigation recommendations of the 2002 Composite Risk Assessment.
The Smithsonian's security efforts are funded entirely through federal
funds.[Footnote 23] Smithsonian obligations for security have increased
since September 11, 2001--from $37 million in 2001 to a high of $67
million in 2006--but certain needs have gone unaddressed. For example,
since 1999, the Smithsonian has identified $31.3 million in projects
for its security system modernization program--which involves upgrading
and integrating security capabilities across the organization--and thus
far has received $17.6 million to complete security upgrades, such as
CCTV and key card access systems. As a result, the Smithsonian has
implemented some of these security systems upgrades at some facilities,
but other facilities have not yet received the necessary funds to do
so. Furthermore, the Smithsonian is still working on implementing blast
and perimeter security projects, which were mitigation recommendations
from its all-hazards risk assessment report. Completion of these
projects depends on the availability of funds. Smithsonian officials
noted that security projects compete with maintenance needs for
facilities' funds. Therefore, the limited overall funds for these
issues force a balancing of priorities in both areas, sometimes against
one another.
In addition, the number of Smithsonian security officers has been
reduced steadily since May 2003, even as the Smithsonian's square
footage has increased due to new museums being opened. As a result,
there have been fewer officers and other security staff to cover more
space. For example, from May 2003 to May 2007, 6 out of 10 museums and
facilities for which the Smithsonian provided data experienced a
reduction in the number of security officers assigned to the facility;
the reductions ranged from 4 percent to 41 percent (see fig. 12).
Smithsonian officials noted that some museums experienced a decrease in
visitation during some of these years, and that OPS increased the use
of technological security equipment, such as alarms and cameras, during
this time.
Figure 12: Security Officer Levels at Smithsonian Institution Museums
and Facilities, 2003 Compared with 2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Smithsonian Institute data.
Note: Based on the data provided by the Smithsonian, we could compare
2003 levels to 2007 levels only for these 10 museums because some
museums were closed or opened between 2003 and 2007. For example, the
Museum of American History was closed for renovation in 2006 and will
reopen in the summer of 2008; therefore, its security staff was reduced
from 2003 levels. The Museum of the American Indian opened to the
public in 2004. In addition, the National Air and Space Museum Stephen
F. Udvar-Hazy Center Phase I has contract security officers overseen by
two OPS officers.
[End of figure]
Five of the 10 Smithsonian facilities shown in figure 12 experienced
security officer reductions of 25 percent or more. For example, the
Smithsonian American Art Museum's Renwick Gallery experienced a 41
percent reduction in security officers since 2003. In addition, the
security officer levels decreased significantly at both the Smithsonian
Quadrangle (25 percent) and the Cultural Resources Center (28 percent).
Some of the Smithsonian's most visited and largest facilities have
experienced the greatest reductions in security officers. The Air and
Space Museum, which contains 663,170 square feet, and the Museum of
Natural History, which contains 1.98 million square feet, both
experienced a 31 percent reduction in security officers in 2007
compared with 2003.
Additionally, attendance has increased recently at many of the museums,
intensifying the demands on the reduced security staff. Moreover, these
reductions in the numbers of security staff at museums and facilities
occurred even though the Smithsonian had one or more facilities closed
for renovations during this time, and OPS assigned some security
officers from the closed facility to other facilities. In the future,
when the Smithsonian has all of its facilities open, the need for
security officers will increase. For example, the Museum of American
History currently is closed to the public; as a result, 28 of its
security officers are temporarily reassigned to various museums.
Smithsonian officials stated that when the Museum of American History
reopens, those 28 officers will return to the Museum of American
History, leading to vacancies at the Museum of the American Indian and
the Portrait Gallery.
All museum and facility directors we spoke with stated that the
security officer levels at their facilities are inadequate. Some museum
and facility directors stated that some of the galleries that used to
have several security officers have been reduced to sharing one
security officer with other galleries, resulting in too much square
footage having to be protected by one officer. Another facility
director stated that security alarms go off frequently and that a
security officer is not available to check the validity of the alarm
because the facility does not have an adequate amount of security
officers. Moreover, one museum did not have enough security officers
for 2 days to staff the museum's main entrance, resulting in the main
entrance being closed. The museum was still open to the public through
the lower-level staff entrance; however, the director of this facility
stated that the closed main entrance deterred many people from
entering. Also, museum and facility directors at other facilities
stated they have strongly considered temporarily closing galleries due
to an inadequate level of security officers needed to properly protect
collections. Lastly, two museum directors stated that it has become
more difficult for them to acquire collections on loan because lenders
have expressed concern with the lack of protection.
Some of the Smithsonian's museum directors stated that insufficient
numbers of security officers contributed to some cases of vandalism and
theft. For example, one museum director stated that on or before
November 2006, several mammalian fossils were stolen from an exhibit,
and damage to dinosaur exhibits has periodically occurred from visitors
throwing water bottles and other objects at them. Three other museum
directors stated that their museums have experienced increased rates of
vandalism due to the lack of security officers patrolling the
galleries. At one museum, for example, an object that resembles a
telephone booth was continually vandalized by visitors who would write
on the exhibit. The vandalism stopped when the museum convinced OPS to
install a camera near the object. In the same museum, visitors have in
some instances spit on or kissed a few pieces of artwork in the
building. According to an OPS official, the Smithsonian started a new
program in the summer of 2007, in which college students were hired as
gallery attendants. The program places gallery attendants in exhibits
that cannot be manned by security guards. The gallery attendants do not
wear uniforms or fulfill any security officer duties; however, they
wear uniform polo shirts so they are easily recognizable by the public
and serve as additional eyes and ears for the security officers.
In addition to having insufficient numbers of security officers,
according to a Smithsonian official, funding constraints have affected
the Smithsonian's ability to recruit and retain security officers, who
are able to find higher paying jobs at other federal agencies.
According to Smithsonian officials, officer attrition has increased
every year since 2003. Smithsonian officials stated that after they
invest in the training of their security officers, many of them leave
for federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, that can hire
officers at a higher pay grade. The Smithsonian's experience is not
unique: as we reported in 2003, more than 300 federal law enforcement
officers in the Washington, D.C., area left their jobs to join the
Transportation Security Administration during fiscal 2002, which was
able to offer air marshal recruits higher compensation and more
flexible benefit packages than many other federal police
forces.[Footnote 24] After September 11, 2001, the Smithsonian
attempted to address this problem by increasing its entry level
security officer pay grade from a General Schedule-4 to General
Schedule-5. However, according to Smithsonian officials, this pay grade
increase has been insufficient to compete with other agencies and
localities. OPS submitted a request through its budget process to
upgrade all entry level security officers to a General Schedule-6 pay
grade starting in fiscal year 2004, but the request was denied by
Smithsonian management due to inadequate funds in the Smithsonian
budget and higher internal budget priorities.
The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Real Property Portfolio
Management but Faces Challenges Related to Funding Constraints and Its
Capital Plan:
Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate for
facilities projects, the Smithsonian has taken steps to improve the
management of its real property portfolio but faces challenges related
to funding constraints and its capital plan. Several factors, such as
historic preservation requirements, affect the Smithsonian's efforts to
manage its real property portfolio within funding constraints. The
Smithsonian has taken steps to improve its real property portfolio
management that incorporate the administration's real property
guidance. These include improving real property data and developing
performance measures on, for example, facility condition and customer
satisfaction. In addition, the Smithsonian has taken steps to improve
its capital planning process, which is also an important part of real
property portfolio management. However, funding constraints have
presented considerable challenges, and, while OFEO has worked to
justify an increase in federal funding for facilities, the
Smithsonian's capital plan omits privately funded projects. Although
information on the scope and funding of privately funded projects is
provided to stakeholders in other documents, the lack of this
information in the capital plan has limited the ability of the
Smithsonian and other stakeholders to comprehensively assess the
funding and scope of facilities projects.
Several Factors Affect the Smithsonian's Real Property Management
Efforts:
Several factors affect the Smithsonian's efforts to manage its real
property portfolio within funding constraints. As previously discussed,
the condition of many of the Smithsonian's facilities is deteriorating.
In addition, according to Smithsonian officials, many of the
Smithsonian's buildings are either historic or signature buildings,
which can increase the cost of revitalization or construction projects.
Smithsonian officials stated that, by law, the Smithsonian is required
to comply with historical preservation requirements and that preserving
the historical character of its facilities is in the interest of the
public and Congress. Smithsonian officials stated that the National
Capital Planning Commission closely monitors the Smithsonian's
compliance with historical preservation guidance.[Footnote 25] As such,
the Smithsonian's revitalization of historic buildings has included
restoring historical elements that have increased the costs of these
projects. For example, according to Smithsonian officials, the Reynolds
Center revitalization included replacing windows with historically
appropriate glass and replacing a ruined tile floor with matching tile
that had to be imported from England. OFEO officials stated that they
do not consider these decisions to be choices given the legal
requirements necessitated by historic preservation laws and
regulations.
In addition, according to OFEO officials, when the Smithsonian is
mandated by Congress to build new museums, particularly when they are
on the National Mall or other prominent locations, the buildings, such
as the Museum of the American Indian, are considered signature or
landmark buildings and often have architectural elements that require
innovative, creative, and sometimes expensive architectural and
engineering techniques. This can increase not only the costs and
difficulty of constructing these buildings but also the cost and
difficulty of maintaining them after construction. However, OFEO
officials stated that the Smithsonian strives to fulfill the
architect's vision since stakeholders, including Congress and the
public, expect these buildings to be landmarks.
Another factor that affects the Smithsonian's efforts to manage its
real property portfolio within funding constraints is the number of its
facilities. Although the Smithsonian has disposed of a few facilities
in recent years, as discussed below, OFEO officials stated that the
Smithsonian considers its remaining facilities, in particular its
museums and research centers, as central to its mission and, therefore,
worthy of care and protection. According to OFEO officials, many
Smithsonian units were created by statute or restricted gift, and the
Smithsonian is legally limited in the kinds of decisions it can make
about some of its facilities. In April 2001, the Smithsonian proposed
closing the National Zoo's Conservation and Research Center in Front
Royal, Virginia, but this proposal generated considerable opposition
and was abandoned. In recent years, the Smithsonian's appropriations
acts have included language prohibiting the Smithsonian from using
federally appropriated funds to close facilities related to existing
Smithsonian science programs without the approval by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.[Footnote 26]
The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Real Property Portfolio
Management and Incorporate Real Property Guidance:
Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate for
facilities projects, the Smithsonian has continued to build on efforts
to improve its real property portfolio management that started in
fiscal year 2001, when it began to centralize its facilities management
in response to NAPA's recommendations and its own internal review. In
our 2005 report, we found that in reorganizing its facilities
management under OFEO, the Smithsonian was incorporating recognized
industry best practices so that its resources would go as far as
possible toward addressing its rapidly growing revitalization,
construction, and maintenance workload. Since then, OFEO has continued
some of these efforts as well as implemented new ones. Specifically,
OFEO has made significant strides in real property guidance, real
property data inventory, maintaining the Smithsonian's real property at
the right size and cost, facilities maintenance, and the development
and use of performance measures. Many of these steps incorporate the
administration's real property guidance.
The Smithsonian's steps to improve its guidance on real property
management are consistent with a goal of the real property initiative
to systematize agency procedures and actions related to asset
management through the development of an asset management plan. Since
2005, OFEO finalized and put into effect its first Operations and
Maintenance Handbook and revised its Facilities Project Management
Handbook to streamline and update its content. These handbooks define
the Smithsonian's policies and procedures related to their respective
subjects, and OFEO officials told us they are in effect throughout the
Smithsonian. In addition, the Smithsonian has had a directive on real
estate asset management in effect since May 1, 2003, which establishes
policy for managing real estate assets. It is in the process of
revising this directive. According to OFEO officials, OFEO is also
developing a real estate management handbook that will articulate the
Smithsonian's policies related to real property acquisitions and
disposals, among other things. OFEO has also used a space utilization
guide it developed in 2003 to standardize the amount of space given to
areas such as offices and conference rooms during new construction and
new leases, and as it reconfigures space during
revitalizations.[Foontote 27]
The Smithsonian has also recognized the importance of the real property
initiative's goal of a complete and accurate inventory of all
constructed assets to help with decision making. As part of the real
property initiative, the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC)
identified and defined 24 data elements that must be captured and
reported by the 15 largest federal landholding agencies.[Footnote 28]
Although the Smithsonian is not required to capture or report this
data, the Smithsonian has developed a database to do so. As of August,
15, 2007, a majority of the database was complete, and the Smithsonian
was continuing to add data to it. For example, 80 percent of the data
on the element of size was included in the database, and according to
Smithsonian officials, the missing data on size were mostly for
outlying and miscellaneous spaces that it will include when reasonably
available. Four of the 24 data elements established by the FRPC are
performance measures--utilization, condition index, mission dependency,
and annual operating and maintenance costs. Smithsonian officials
stated that the Smithsonian was currently in the process of inputting
the data on condition index, mission dependency, and annual operating
and maintenance costs into the database and that it planned to include
data on utilization by the end of fiscal year 2008.
OFEO has also taken steps to maintain the Smithsonian's real property
inventory at the right size and cost to meet the Smithsonian's mission.
For example, although OFEO officials described the Smithsonian's real
estate portfolio as stable and said there is little opportunity for
disposing of facilities, according to Smithsonian officials, since
2005, OFEO spearheaded the disposal of the only three owned buildings
that the Smithsonian has disposed of in the past 20 years. According to
Smithsonian officials, these disposal decisions were made to eliminate
unneeded space or reduce costs, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Buildings Disposed of by the Smithsonian Since 2005, Including
Elements of Decision and Proceeds, as Described by Smithsonian
Officials:
Building and purpose: Bronx, New York, warehouses used to hold
collections for the Museum of the American Indian; Key elements of
disposal decision: No need for these warehouses once these collections
were moved to the National Museum of the American Indian and the
Conservation Research Center in Suitland, Maryland; Date and proceeds:
Sold in April 2005, with proceeds of $11.1 million, which went to the
Smithsonian trust and debt related to construction of National Museum
of the American Indian.
Building and purpose: Victor Building in Penn Quarter area of
Washington, D.C., near the National Mall, used for administrative
offices; Key elements of disposal decision: Revitalization of area
where building is located had increased the building's value; the
Smithsonian determined it could reduce its overall debt by selling,
moving many of its offices to more cost-effective real estate, and
leasing back two floors; Date and proceeds: Sold in November 2005 with
proceeds of $59 million, which went towards relocating occupants to
leased space and to the Smithsonian trust.[A].
Building and purpose: Cinderbed Road warehouse in Virginia used for
collections storage; Key elements of disposal decision: The Smithsonian
determined that the building should be sold for a number of reasons,
including its lack of suitability for collections storage and the
chance to maximize its underlying monetary value. The property was not
fully utilized and more cost-efficient locations were available. As a
short-term solution, the Smithsonian leased back 50 percent of the
building until it consolidates the collections currently in this
warehouse into new leased space, at which point it will vacate the
property; Date and proceeds: Sold in November 2005 with proceeds of
$8.7 million, which went to the Smithsonian trust.
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[A] Regarding the proceeds from the Victor building, according to
Smithsonian officials, per instruction from the Smithsonian's auditor,
the proceeds from this sale were counted as cash in the Smithsonian's
short-term portfolio and must be recognized at a rate of $4 million per
year.
[End of table]
OFEO has also taken steps to improve the maintenance of its facilities.
In 2005, we reported that OFEO identified and prioritized maintenance
projects in conjunction with the museums and other facility groups by
taking into account customer input; annual safety, health, and
environmental inspections; code and regulatory requirements; and
facility assessments. Since that time, it has made its prioritization
process for maintenance projects more formal by establishing a 5-year
maintenance plan in which maintenance projects are prioritized using
the same matrix OFEO developed for capital projects.[Footnote 29] OFEO
also has been instituting a maintenance and inspection process called
reliability centered maintenance (RCM) in an attempt to maximize the
effectiveness of its maintenance resources. This process uses a
combination of time- based actions, preventive maintenance, and run-to-
failure approaches to reach the most cost-effective approach. OFEO
officials stated that as part of this process, they completed an asset
inventory and bar coding of all critical equipment and are in the
process of inputting this information into a database that will produce
work plans associated with each maintainable asset using RCM
technology. The goals are that the system will ensure that predictive
and preventive maintenance tasks are generated and performed for these
assets, will contain historical cost and repair information about these
assets, and will track the scheduling and completion of maintenance
activities. They stated that the system will provide much more
empirical data to make decisions with but that staff will need to be
trained and become comfortable with using the system. They expect it to
take 1 year before the system's data are fully accurate and useful.
OFEO has also taken significant steps to develop and use performance
metrics to monitor the effectiveness of its real property management
efforts and help with decision making, which is also highlighted in the
real property management initiative. OFEO has developed over 30 metrics
that OFEO's director monitors monthly in order to benchmark with other
organizations and spot possible problem areas. OFEO's metrics cover
capital planning, project management, maintenance, customer
satisfaction, worker safety statistics, and other areas. The director
of OFEO requires staff to report on these metrics each month; the
director then compiles the results and discusses them with Smithsonian
leadership at a monthly meeting. According to Smithsonian officials,
the monthly results of the metrics are also posted on the Smithsonian's
intranet so that stakeholders throughout the institution can stay
informed.
Furthermore, OFEO has taken steps to improve its communications with
museum and facility directors. OFEO holds regular meetings with museum
and other facilities' directors in order to discuss and attempt to
resolve any issues. OFEO also uses customer surveys to elicit feedback
on maintenance and repair efforts, and it includes the results of these
surveys as one of its metrics. All of the directors of museums and
other facilities we spoke with said that OFEO communicates well with
them. Several of the directors of museums and other facilities who were
not satisfied with OFEO's customer service when we spoke with them for
our 2005 report said that OFEO's customer service had improved
significantly since then.
Smithsonian's Capital Planning Process Incorporates Many Capital
Planning Principles:
The Smithsonian has also taken steps to improve its real property
portfolio management by refining elements of its capital planning
process, which incorporates many capital planning principles as defined
by our prior work and OMB.[Footnote 30] According to our prior work,
effective capital planning has clear implications for strategic real
property management because it can help agencies make the most of
limited resources. A number of laws enacted in the 1990s placed
increased emphasis on improving capital decision-making practices, and
OMB's Capital Programming Guide has attempted to address the
government's shortcomings in this area.[Footnote 31] In recent work, we
identified five key capital planning principles contained in our and
OMB's guidance. These principles are strategic linkage, needs
assessment and gap identification, alternatives evaluation, a review
and approval framework with established criteria for selecting capital
investments, and a long-term capital investment plan. The Smithsonian's
capital planning process incorporates elements of each of these
principles.
The Smithsonian's strategic planning and capital planning materials,
such as its current strategic plan, performance plan, and annual goals,
articulate strategic linkage between the Smithsonian's mission and the
Smithsonian's vision for capital planning. Moreover, there is a clear
link between the Smithsonian's vision for facilities expressed in these
documents and the Smithsonian's 5-year capital plan.
Regarding needs assessment and gap identification, the Smithsonian's
capital planning decision-making process is guided by a comprehensive
assessment of facilities' conditions and needs and the identification
of performance gaps between current and needed capabilities. This
effort to assess needs and identify performance gaps is informed by two
processes: facilities condition assessments and master planning.
According to OFEO officials, in July 2006, OFEO implemented a new
system to conduct condition assessments in order to be able to update
its condition assessments for all of its facilities annually. This
system includes a visual assessment and rating of the major building
systems of each facility to determine the costs of its deferred
maintenance. OFEO expects to have assessed all of its facilities under
this system by August 2007. In addition, during this process, OFEO has
updated the current replacement value of each facility and has found
that the aggregate replacement value for Smithsonian facilities is $4.7
billion.[Footnote 32] It is also calculating each facility's facility
condition index, which is a ratio comparing a facility's current
replacement value to its deferred maintenance costs that allows the
Smithsonian to objectively compare its facilities to each other and
benchmark the condition of its facilities with other facilities in
order to assist in prioritization and decision making.
OFEO also uses facilities' master plans to help assess facilities
projects and identify gaps between current and needed capabilities.
Currently, some of the Smithsonian's owned facilities have ongoing or
completed master plans, and the Smithsonian plans to develop master
plans for the rest of its owned facilities by fiscal year 2015. Master
plans for facilities such as the Museum of American History include
information on the current condition of the facility, including
deficiencies, a plan for correcting these deficiencies, and a vision
for improving the facility's space in order to enhance the facility's
ability to meet its mission. According to OFEO officials, when a
facility has an ongoing or completed master plan, the master plan
informs the development of projects for the Smithsonian's capital plan.
According to Smithsonian officials, facilities' master plans also
incorporate alternatives evaluation by considering several alternative
ways to meet a facility's defined mission.
As we reported in 2005, the Smithsonian's capital planning efforts also
include a review and approval framework with established criteria for
selecting capital investments and a long-term capital investment plan.
Each year, OFEO, working with the museums and other facility groups,
develops an annual list of new and previously submitted projects, which
are prioritized for inclusion in the annual 5-year capital plan using a
prioritization matrix previously described in conjunction with the
Smithsonian's 5-year maintenance plan. OFEO officials stated that they
have refined this process in recent years. For example, according to
OFEO officials, the discussions with the museums and research
institutes now include the maintenance program as well as the capital
program to ensure that all issues in each facility are taken care of in
one of the programs. After the capital plan has been revised to reflect
any new projects or changes in priorities, the updated capital plan is
reviewed by the Smithsonian's Capital Planning Board[Footnote 33] and
the Secretary of the Smithsonian. After any revisions are made, the
Board of Regents approves the Smithsonian's capital plan as part of the
Smithsonian's annual budget submission to OMB, and then the entire
budget submission is sent to OMB.
Funding Constraints Have Presented Considerable Challenges:
In spite of OFEO's efforts to effectively manage its real property
portfolio within funding constraints, these constraints have presented
considerable challenges. OFEO has not had sufficient federal funds to
address all of the facilities projects identified in its current
estimate of about $2.5 billion from fiscal year 2005 to year 2013,
which comes to an average of about $278 million annually. As shown in
table 2, annual federal capital and maintenance appropriations for
Smithsonian facilities in recent years have been considerably below
$278 million.
Table 2: Smithsonian Institution Facilities Capital and Maintenance
Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Dollars in millions.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Facilities capital appropriation: $97.9; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: $14.5; Total: $112.4.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Facilities capital appropriation: 98.8; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: 17.0; Total: 115.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Facilities capital appropriation: 107.6; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: 39.6; Total: 147.2.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Facilities capital appropriation: 126.1; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: 38.2; Total: 164.3.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Facilities capital appropriation: 98.5; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: 45.0; Total: 143.5.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Facilities capital appropriation: 98.6; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: 51.3; Total: 149.9.
Fiscal year: Total;
Facilities capital appropriation: $627.5; Facilities maintenance
appropriation: $205.6; Total: $833.1.
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
Note: According to Smithsonian officials, the facilities maintenance
appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 reflect the proportion of
the total salaries and expenses appropriation that went toward OFEO's
maintenance budget. However, these numbers do not reflect the total
funds used for maintenance by the Smithsonian for those years because
some maintenance was funded through individual facilities' budgets
rather than through OFEO's budget. Starting in fiscal year 2004, all
facilities maintenance was funded through OFEO's maintenance budget,
and the Smithsonian's maintenance appropriation reflected a line item
in the Smithsonian's budget justification request to Congress.
[End of table]
Funding constraints have reduced OFEO's ability to implement and
complete capital projects to address long-standing problems with
facilities, such as those described earlier in this report. The
majority of museum and facility directors stated that they think OFEO
does a good job of prioritizing and addressing problems with the amount
of funds available, and, as discussed previously, some of the major
facilities problems they identified to us are scheduled to be addressed
in the next several years. For example, the electrical systems at the
Air and Space Museum are scheduled to be replaced in fiscal years 2007
through 2010.
However, Smithsonian officials stated that, generally, funding is
available only for top-priority revitalization and emergency
maintenance projects. As a result, some high-priority repairs have been
put on hold while major revitalizations, such as the revitalization of
the Reynolds Center, are completed. According to OFEO officials, the
Reynolds Center revitalization became a top priority because the
building was in such poor condition that it would have become unusable
without a major revitalization. An OFEO official stated that prior to
the revitalization, due to problems with the facility's systems, the
water was undrinkable and there were incidents of bursting valves.
Several museum and facility directors expressed frustration that
projects at their facilities had been delayed. For example, the
director of the Freer and Sackler Galleries expressed frustration that
fixing the Quadrangle's condensate system, which threatens collections
and has been a problem since 1993, was originally in the capital plan
to be fixed in fiscal year 2006 but was delayed until fiscal year 2007
because of a lack of funding.
Funding constraints for facilities maintenance have also limited OFEO's
ability to implement its 5-year maintenance plan. OFEO officials stated
that current funding enables the execution of only about 30 percent of
its maintenance plan. As a result, OFEO is never able to get past the
top-priority maintenance projects in the plan to complete other
important maintenance projects. According to OFEO officials, a lack of
sufficient funds for maintenance has limited their ability to optimally
maintain their equipment, leading to more expensive failures later on
and to systems that need to be replaced--and thus end up in the capital
program--sooner than they might otherwise be.
Some museum and facility directors described reservations about the
centralization of facilities management under OFEO related to funding
constraints and maintenance issues. About half of the museum and
facility directors we spoke with were satisfied with OFEO's centralized
facilities management approach, and some noted that OFEO has brought a
higher degree of professionalism to the Smithsonian's real property
management activities. However, several museum and facility directors
who were less satisfied with OFEO's centralized facilities management
approach cited a neglect of day-to-day maintenance due to a lack of
staffing and funding or greater difficulty getting facilities funds to
pay for small maintenance or repair projects.
OFEO officials have attempted to get 2 percent of the Smithsonian's
facilities' current replacement value for the maintenance budget--which
is almost entirely federally funded--but they have not been able to do
so. According to the National Research Council, an industry group, a
maintenance budget of 2 percent to 4 percent of current replacement
value is recommended to meet the appropriate maintenance requirements
of facilities. Although the Smithsonian's maintenance appropriation
increased in fiscal year 2007, it represented a maintenance budget of 1
percent of current replacement value.
The Smithsonian's Omission of Private Funds from Its Capital Plan Has
Made It Challenging for Stakeholders to Assess the Funding and Scope of
Projects:
The Smithsonian's omission of privately funded facilities projects from
its capital plan has added to its challenges in managing real property
by reducing the ability of the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities projects.
According to OFEO officials, OFEO's efforts related to securing
increased funds for facilities have centered on more effectively
justifying to Congress the need for an increase in federal funds for
facilities. According to OFEO officials, developing a funding strategy
that goes beyond federal funding is a matter for the Board of Regents
to determine.
At the same time, while the Smithsonian has received private funds for
facilities projects through donations, the Smithsonian has omitted
privately funded projects from its capital plan. As discussed earlier
in this report, it also has not included privately funded projects in
its updated cost estimate of $2.5 billion for facilities projects
through fiscal year 2013. Its capital plan and cost estimate therefore
lack comprehensiveness and transparency and do not effectively
communicate all of the Smithsonian's scope and funding priorities to
the Board of Regents, OMB, and Congress in a way that could be helpful
to considering funding strategies that go beyond federal
funding.[Footnote 34] In prior work, we have identified
comprehensiveness as an important element of agencies' long-term
capital plans.
The Smithsonian includes information on the scope and funding of
privately funded projects in other documents that are provided to
stakeholders, such as the capital asset plans (Exhibit 300s) required
to be submitted to OMB for each major new and ongoing project. However,
a Smithsonian official described the capital plan as the primary
document that defines the Smithsonian's long-term capital strategy, and
the Smithsonian has used its cost estimate for facilities projects
through 2013 to describe its long-term funding needs for facilities to
Congress and other stakeholders. These two documents are therefore key
places where the Smithsonian lays out its overall facilities needs and
its strategy for addressing those needs. As a result, even though
information on privately funded projects is detailed elsewhere, the
lack of such information in these documents limits the ability of the
Smithsonian and other stakeholders to comprehensively assess the
funding and scope of facilities projects in the context of the
Smithsonian's overall facilities' strategy--and de-emphasizes the
existing and potential role of private funding in this strategy.
The omission of privately funded projects from these documents is
particularly noteworthy because in recent years, private funds have
played an important role in funding some of the Smithsonian's highest-
priority construction and revitalization projects. According to
Smithsonian officials, in fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the
Smithsonian spent $393.4 million in private funds for capital and
revitalization projects, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Funding and Total Cost of Smithsonian Capital Projects That
Have Received Private Funds for Capital Costs, Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Dollars in millions.
Capital project: National Museum of the American Indian; Private funds
for capital costs (new construction and enhancements): $80; Federal
funds for capital costs (new construction and revitalization): $119.3;
Total capital costs: $199.3.
Capital project: National Air and Space Museum Steve F. Udvar-Hazy
Center, Phase I; Private funds for capital costs (new construction and
enhancements): 176.3; Federal funds for capital costs (new construction
and revitalization): 8.7; Total capital costs: 185.
Capital project: National Air and Space Museum Steve F. Udvar-Hazy
Center, Phase II; Private funds for capital costs (new construction and
enhancements): 3.7; Federal funds for capital costs (new construction
and revitalization): 0; Total capital costs: 3.7.
Capital project: National Museum of American History; Private funds for
capital costs (new construction and enhancements): 39.2; Federal funds
for capital costs (new construction and revitalization): 50.7; Total
capital costs: 89.9.
Capital project: National Zoological Park; Private funds for capital
costs (new construction and enhancements): 22.2; Federal funds for
capital costs (new construction and revitalization): 80.9; Total
capital costs: 103.1.
Capital project: Donald W. Reynolds Center; Private funds for capital
costs (new construction and enhancements): 72; Federal funds for
capital costs (new construction and revitalization): 166; Total capital
costs: 238.
Capital project: Total;
Private funds for capital costs (new construction and enhancements):
$393.4; Federal funds for capital costs (new construction and
revitalization): $425.6; Total capital costs: $819.
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of table]
These private funds have been important in supplementing the
Smithsonian's federal capital appropriations for facilities projects
during this time period. For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the
Smithsonian received $627.5 million in federal capital appropriations,
as shown previously in table 2. Therefore, altogether, the
Smithsonian's funds for capital projects from fiscal years 2002 through
2007 was slightly over $1 billion ($393.4 million in private funds,
used for new construction and enhancements, and $627.5 million in
federal appropriations, used for new construction and revitalization).
Private funds therefore made up 39 percent of its capital funds for
facilities during these years.
Smithsonian officials stated that, generally, donors require that their
gifts be used toward new construction or enhancements that are part of
larger revitalizations, and that the majority of these private funds
were donated for the construction of new facilities--namely, the Museum
of the American Indian and the Udvar-Hazy Center. Smithsonian officials
also stated that there is no assurance that private funds would
continue to make up the same percentage of the Smithsonian's total
funds for capital projects in future years.
Other organizations we visited include both private and public
investments in their capital plans to inform their stakeholders about
the scope of projects and the extent of such partnerships used to fund
capital needs. According to a senior vice president at the American
Museum of Natural History in New York, describing the entire project
and projected sources of income to the city of New York in the capital
plan helps the museum make its case with the city and fosters a
positive relationship. The official also stated that including the
entire project in the capital plan can help show donors both the
programmatic link to the museum's capital requests and the support
expected by the city, which can help with the museum's private fund
raising.
Smithsonian officials stated that they do not project future private
funds in the capital plan because of the uncertainty of what these
amounts will be. In contrast, the University of California acknowledges
this uncertainty in its capital plan but, nevertheless, includes
privately as well as publicly funded projects in its plan, along with
tentative projections and strategies for meeting those projections. It
states, for example, that the Berkeley campus seeks funds for capital
construction through targeted campaigns. In addition, the University of
California distinguishes in the plan between privately funded projects
the campus is committed to moving forward on in the 5-year period and
privately funded projects it would move forward on only when funds are
available--while including information on both. The lack of such
information in the Smithsonian's capital plan de-emphasizes the
potential for private funds to help address facilities projects and
makes the capital plan less comprehensive in describing the scope of
planned projects at the Smithsonian's facilities.
The Smithsonian Has Taken Some Steps to Develop and Implement Funding
Strategies, but Its Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives Has Been
Limited:
The Smithsonian Board of Regents has taken some steps to address our
April 2005 recommendation to develop and implement a strategic funding
plan to address its facilities projects. The Board of Regents created
an ad-hoc committee, which, after reviewing nine funding options,
requested an increase of $100 million in its federal appropriations,
but the success of this strategy is uncertain. We found that some of
the Smithsonian's evaluations of the other eight funding options were
limited in that they did not always provide complete analysis, fully
explain specific assumptions, or benchmark with other organizations.
Also, the evaluations do not consider combining options in order to
increase the amount of revenue generated.
To Address Our Recommendation, the Smithsonian Requested an Increase of
$100 Million in Its Federal Appropriations, but the Success of This
Strategy Is Uncertain:
The Board of Regents has taken some steps to address our recommendation
to develop and implement a strategic funding plan to address the
Smithsonian's facilities projects. In June 2005, the Board of Regents
established the ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization to
explore options to address the Smithsonian's April 2005 estimated $2.3
billion for facilities revitalization, construction, and maintenance
projects through fiscal year 2013.[Footnote 35] In September 2005, the
ad-hoc committee held a meeting, at which it reviewed nine funding
options that had been prepared by Smithsonian management for addressing
this estimated funding need. The nine options are briefly described in
table 4.
Table 4: Nine Funding Options Evaluated by the Ad-Hoc Committee on
Facilities Revitalization:
Funding option: Federal income tax check-off contribution; Description:
Federal income tax returns would include a check-off box to allow
taxpayers to designate some of their tax liability to a special fund
for the Smithsonian's facilities.
Funding option: Heritage treasures excise tax; Description: An excise
tax would be created, and possibly levied on local hotel bills, to
generate funds for the Smithsonian's facilities.
Funding option: National fund-raising campaign; Description: The
Smithsonian would launch a national campaign to raise funds for its
facilities.
Funding option: General admission fee program; Description: The
Smithsonian would institute a general admission charge to raise funds
for critical but unfunded requirements.
Funding option: Special exhibition fee program; Description: The
Smithsonian would charge visitors to attend a select number of special
exhibitions as a means to raise funds to meet critical but unfunded
requirements.
Funding option: Smithsonian treasures pass program; Description: The
Smithsonian would design a program through which visitors could
purchase a Smithsonian treasures pass with special benefits, such as no-
wait entry into facilities or behind-the-scenes tours, to raise funds
to meet critical but unfunded requirements.
Funding option: Facilities revitalization bond; Description: The
Smithsonian would borrow funds such as through a private or public debt
bond for the Smithsonian's facilities.
Funding option: Closing Smithsonian museums; Description: The
Smithsonian would permanently or temporarily close museums to the
public in order to generate savings to help fund its facilities.
Funding option: Increasing Smithsonian appropriations; Description: The
Board of Regents and other friends of the Smithsonian would approach
the Administration about a dramatic appropriations increase to fund
Smithsonian's facilities.
Source: Smithsonian Institution.
[End of table]
According to Smithsonian regents, after considering these nine proposed
options, the ad-hoc committee decided to request an increase in the
Smithsonian's annual federal appropriations, specifically deciding to
request an additional $100 million over the Smithsonian's current
appropriation annually for 10 years, starting in fiscal year 2008, to
reach a total of an additional $1 billion. According to two regents,
this option was selected for several reasons. First, they stated that
although the other eight options would generate some funding for the
Smithsonian's facilities projects, only an increase in appropriations
had the potential of reaching the April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion
for facilities projects in nine years. Moreover, they stated that among
Smithsonian management and regents, there was a strong feeling that the
revitalization, construction, and maintenance of Smithsonian facilities
are federal responsibilities.[Footnote 36]
According to Smithsonian officials, it is the position of the
Smithsonian, based on an historical understanding, that the maintenance
and revitalization of facilities are a federal responsibility.
Smithsonian officials pointed out that as early as the 1850s, the
federal government has provided appropriations to the Smithsonian for
the care of objects belonging to the United States. In addition, the
regents added that there was a sentiment at the meeting that the Board
of Regents should not offer to replace public responsibilities with
private dollars, since private funding can be less reliable than annual
federal appropriations.
In September 2006, several members of the Board of Regents and the
Secretary of the Smithsonian met with the President to discuss the
issue of increased federal funding for the Smithsonian's facilities.
According to Smithsonian regents, during the meeting, among other
things, the regents discussed the problem of aging facilities and the
need for an additional $100 million in federal funds annually for 10
years to address the institution's facilities revitalization,
construction, and maintenance needs. The representatives of the
Smithsonian at the meeting told the President that they had no other
options to obtain this $100 million except the Smithsonian's federal
appropriation. These representatives said the Smithsonian had made
considerable expense cuts and raised substantial private funds, but
donors are unwilling to donate money to repair and maintain facilities.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal, published in February
2007, proposed an increase of about $44 million over the Smithsonian's
fiscal year 2007 appropriation, representing an increase of about $9
million for its facilities capital appropriation and an increase of
about $35 million for its salaries and expenses appropriation--which
includes facilities maintenance.[Footnote 37] However, funds in the
salaries and expenses appropriation also support many other activities,
such as research, collections, and exhibitions, and it is not clear how
much of the $35 million increase the Smithsonian would use for
facilities maintenance. Moreover, Congress may choose to adopt or
modify the President's budget proposal when funds are appropriated for
the fiscal year. According to two regents, while the $44 million
increase in the President's proposed budget is good news for the
Smithsonian and its facilities, it does not provide a complete solution
for the April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion in facilities projects,
and, as a result, the Board of Regents will have to consider and
implement other options. Furthermore, given the previously described
increase in the Smithsonian's estimate for facilities projects to about
$2.5 billion, even if the Smithsonian were able to secure a $100
million increase in its federal appropriations for 10 years, to reach a
total of an additional $1 billion by 2013, it would not fully address
the Smithsonian's estimated funding needs for facilities projects.
Figure 13 shows a timeline summarizing some of the key events that have
occurred since the Board of Regents established the ad-hoc Committee on
Facilities Revitalization.
Figure 13: Timeline of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Facilities
Revitalization Key Events:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Smithsonian Institute data.
[End of figure]
Some of Smithsonian's Evaluations of the Other Eight Funding Options
Were Limited:
The Smithsonian's evaluation of the other eight funding options that
were presented in preparatory materials by Smithsonian management to
the Board of Regents included the potential benefits and drawbacks of
each funding option. However, we found that, in some cases, the
Smithsonian's evaluation of these options was limited in that it did
not always provide complete analysis, fully explain specific
assumptions, or benchmark with other organizations--items crucial to
determining each option's potential for reducing the April 2005
estimate of $2.3 billion in facilities projects.
In the preparatory materials, several of the nine options are dismissed
because, independently, the options would not generate the sizable sums
required to address the Smithsonian's facilities projects. However,
there is no mention of combining options in order to increase the
amount of revenue generated. Combining options has the potential to
raise more funds to address the Smithsonian's revitalization,
construction, and maintenance projects at a faster rate than any one
option independently. In fact, in the wake of the Board of Regents'
failure to secure an increase of $100 million from the President's
proposed budget, one regent said that there is no single solution and a
combination of options will have to be used to fund the Smithsonian's
facilities projects. An analysis of the potential of combining options
could have been useful to members of the ad-hoc committee in developing
a funding strategy for the Smithsonian's facilities projects.
Evaluation of the Option to Close Museums Is Not Complete:
In evaluating the option to close museums, the preparatory materials
provided to the ad-hoc committee did not provide a complete analysis of
the potential scenarios for closing museums in order to determine how
this option could be implemented in a way that would maximize cost
savings while minimizing revenue losses. This is important since the
Smithsonian based its analysis of this option on the costs saved (i.e.,
for security and custodial staff) versus forgone concession revenue.
For example, in one scenario, the Smithsonian proposed to close all
museums on the National Mall 1 day a week (Tuesday), which would result
in the Smithsonian earning zero concessions revenue from visitors on
that day. On the other hand, the Smithsonian did not consider closing
museums 1 day a week on a staggered schedule so that visitors would
have a choice of some open museums each day of the week. This scenario
would allow the Smithsonian to capture concessions revenue each day of
the week--versus the scenario provided in the preparatory materials, in
which there would be 1 day (Tuesday) with no opportunities for a
visitor to spend money at the Smithsonian.
In another scenario, the Smithsonian considered closing all museums on
the National Mall for 3 days a week, except for the American Indian
Museum, which would be closed for 2 days a week. Although, unlike in
the previous scenario, the Smithsonian did stagger the three days on
which the museums would be closed, the scenario included closing the
three most visited museums in 2006--Air and Space Museum, Museum of
American History, and Museum of Natural History--on some of the same
days (see fig. 14).
Figure 14: Smithsonian Institution's Scenario for Closing All
Smithsonian Museums on the National Mall for 3 Days a Week:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Smithsonian Institute data.
[End of figure]
As shown in Figure 14, the scenario of closing National Mall museums 3
days a week included closing all of the art museums on the National
Mall on the same day two times a week. Furthermore, the Smithsonian
only considered this one scenario for closing museums on multiple days
a week, rather than considering several scenarios to find the optimum
combination of providing visitors with museum variety each day in order
to maximize potential revenues. For example, Smithsonian did not
analyze the following scenarios:
* Limiting the days the three museums with the highest visitation rates
and concessions earnings are closed, while focusing on closing the
museums that have the lowest visitation and concessions earnings rates.
* Ensuring that one or more art museums are open each day so that
visitors interested in art have an option to visit at least one art
museum each day--and spend concessions dollars in art museum
restaurants and stores.
* Closing only one of the three most visited museums each day to
provide visitors more choices of where to go and ensure that at least
two of these museums are capturing revenue.
In discussing these two scenarios for closing museums, the Smithsonian
did not explain why these options were evaluated over other options. It
is also not clear why the Smithsonian chose to evaluate museum closures
only on the National Mall. The Smithsonian has several other museums
not located on the National Mall that it could also consider closing to
save costs.
Evaluations of the National Fund-Raising Campaign and Treasures Pass
Program Options Have Unclear Assumptions:
In the preparatory materials provided to the ad-hoc committee, the
Smithsonian's evaluation of implementing a national fund-raising
campaign does not fully explain some of the assumptions used to
determine the revenues, costs, and length of the campaign described.
The analysis predicts that a Smithsonian national fund-raising campaign
could generate $13 million to $16 million and limits the life of the
campaign to 2 to 4 years. However, it is unclear how the Smithsonian
developed these revenue and time figures, especially since the analysis
cites the experiences of other campaigns whose revenue and time figures
are much different. For example, the analysis describes the experience
of the campaign for the World War II Memorial, which raised $165
million in 8 years, or $20.6 million per year. In another example, the
analysis describes the campaign for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis
Island Foundation, which raised $540 million in 19 years, or $28.4
million per year.
The Smithsonian's analysis also states that a national fund-raising
campaign would require deferring fund-raising efforts from other
Smithsonian-wide direct marketing efforts and cost $3 million. However,
the analysis does not estimate the cost of deferring current fund-
raising efforts or explain how the $3 million cost assumption was
derived. Moreover, the analysis suggests that the costs of deferring
current fund-raising efforts, plus the $3 million to implement a
national fund-raising campaign, would outweigh any revenue gained;
however, this might not be the case.
With regard to the treasures pass program option, the analysis states
that this option would generate a total annual net revenue of $8.4
million. This analysis is limited because it assumes that the cost to
administer this program would be 40 percent of revenues--an estimated
reduction of $5.6 million per year. However, it is unclear how the
Smithsonian developed this assumption because its basis was not
provided or discussed in the preparatory materials. In addition, the
analysis discusses five other cultural organizations' use and cost to
visitors of programs similar to a treasures pass program, such as the
Longwood Gardens in Pennsylvania and the Field Museum in Chicago, but
the analysis does not include information on these organizations' costs
to administer this type of program.
Evaluation of Implementing a General Admission Fee Program Lacks
Benchmarks:
The Smithsonian's evaluation of establishing a general admission fee
program does not use information from other organizations to
comprehensively assess the option's potential benefits. In some
instances, the Smithsonian did not perform research with other
organizations, including one of its own, to gauge if its assumptions
were reasonable. The analysis provided to the ad-hoc committee in
preparatory materials states that a general admission fee program--
which includes a mandatory admission fee for entry into any museum and
the National Zoo and revenue from purchases of the Smithsonian's
membership program that would provide free admission as a benefit --
would generate a total annual net revenue of about $57.6 million ($50.7
million in admission fee revenue plus $6.9 million in new membership
revenue).[Footnote 38]
The analysis states that an admission fee could reduce the amount of
money visitors spend at Smithsonian restaurants and gift stores and
assumed a 10 percent reduction to annual net gains on the basis of
visitor surveys. According to the Smithsonian's evaluation materials,
visitors have indicated that if they had to pay an admission fee to
enter Smithsonian museums, they would spend less once inside the
museums. However, the Smithsonian's materials do not benchmark this
assumption with the experiences of other museums that have established
admission fees. We spoke with the directors or facility directors of
six museums and one zoological park who stated that instituting or
increasing admission fees did not decrease the amount of money visitors
spent in museum restaurants and stores. One of these museums, the
Cooper-Hewitt Museum, is the only Smithsonian museum that charges an
admission fee.[Footnote 39] The Cooper-Hewitt Museum director told us
that he has not seen an effect on restaurant or gift shop sales when
admission fees are raised. He stated that the increase in admission
fees over the past three fiscal years has coincided with a period of
uninterrupted growth in shop revenues. The stated experiences of these
other museums suggest that the Smithsonian may need to analyze this
assumption further by measures such as benchmarking with other museums.
The Smithsonian's analysis of the general admission fee program also
included an adjustment of the gross revenues to cover the cost of
operating and administering an admission fee program. The Smithsonian
estimates that the cost of operating a general admission fee program is
20 percent of gross revenues based on the experience of the Department
of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS) and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service (Forest Service) under the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program.[Footnote 40] However, it is unclear in the
analysis if the Smithsonian consulted directly with NPS or the Forest
Service to better understand this estimate. According to the First
Triennial Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2006 on the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program,[Footnote 41] the average cost of collections for
four federal agencies over fiscal years 2000 through 2003 has remained
constant at about 20 percent of gross fee revenue. However, for fiscal
year 2003, the cost of collection for NPS was about 22 percent and for
the Forest Service about 14 percent. While the Smithsonian may have
chosen to use 20 percent in its analysis because it was the average
cost of collections for four federal agencies over 4 years, given the
variation in these numbers and the differences between NPS and the
Smithsonian, more analysis may be warranted to determine the
Smithsonian's likely costs of administering an admission fee program.
For example, the analysis is unclear if the Smithsonian consulted with
NPS to understand whether NPS's costs to operate the admission fee
program would be similar to the Smithsonian's costs for an admission
fee program. According to an NPS official, there are many factors that
affect the cost to administer the NPS fee program, especially those
costs related to the method by which fees are collected and
administered, such as personnel costs, credit card processing costs,
and the costs to transport and safeguard funds. For example, NPS
collects fees from about 1,000 locations and has costs associated with
vehicles--sometimes armored--used to retrieve cash and deposit it into
a bank. This cost can be high because many locations are geographically
remote--i.e., the Grand Canyon and parks in Alaska. Since Smithsonian
museums are not located in geographically remote areas, its costs to
transport money could be lower than NPS's costs, and, therefore, a
reason why the NPS fiscal year 2003 estimate of 22 percent to
administer the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program may not be
applicable to the Smithsonian.
We found that museums have different experiences with the costs
associated with administering an admission fee program, and, therefore,
it may not have been comprehensive enough for Smithsonian to look at
the experiences of two federal agencies. An official from the Corcoran
Gallery of Art--which is located in Washington, D.C., and is a private
not-for-profit art museum--stated that initially there was a fixed cost
to implementing the admission collection system, but once the system
was implemented, the labor costs associated with administering the
admission fee program were not directly measured because they were
embedded in the operating costs of the organization. For example,
employees assigned to administering the tickets serve multiple other
functions, such as assisting visitors. The Corcoran official also
stated that the revenue gained from admission fees exceeds the cost of
administration. An official from the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA)--which
is located in New York City and is a private not-for-profit art museum-
-expressed a similar point. The official stated that MOMA has no reason
to measure the cost of administering the admission fee program because
it is not a direct cost to the museum since this function is one of
several assigned to museum employees. According to the MOMA official,
absent an admission fee program, MOMA would still need the same number
of staff to assist visitors at the museum.
Two museums that measure the cost to administer the admission fee
program had different experiences. An official with the Phillips
Collection--which is located in Washington, D.C., and is a private not-
for-profit art museum--told us that admission expenses as a percentage
of admissions gross revenue averaged 26 percent over a 3-year period.
In contrast, an official from the American Museum of Natural History--
which is located in New York City and is a private not-for-profit
natural history museum--stated that admission expenses as a percentage
of admissions gross revenue were approximately 13 percent for 2006.
According to two members of the Board of Regents, the board recognizes
that it may need to undertake further analysis of the funding options
presented and consider additional funding options. In June 2007, the
board voted to turn the ad-hoc committee into a standing Committee on
Facilities Revitalization. The members of the Board of Regents also
stated they recognized the need to work closely with Congress on this
issue in the future. However, these regents told us that in light of
other priorities, the board has not yet had time to fully reconsider
funding strategies.
Conclusions:
Clearly, the Smithsonian is at a crossroads, with significant
construction, revitalization, and maintenance projects--including
security-related projects--needed to better protect the Smithsonian's
visiting public, staff, facilities, and collections; as well as funding
constraints that have limited its ability to complete these projects in
a timely manner. Adding to these strains is that the Smithsonian will
continue to grow, with the congressionally authorized Museum of African
American Culture and History. The Smithsonian's strengths in following
key security practices and taking steps to effectively manage its real
property portfolio are limited by these funding constraints.
Moreover, while the Smithsonian has taken steps to effectively
prioritize security projects, such as developing an all-hazards risk
assessment report, the lack of awareness of many museum and facility
directors of this report limits their ability to work with OPS to
identify, monitor, and respond to changes in the security of their
facilities, which may limit the Smithsonian's ability to ensure it is
prioritizing existing resources as effectively as possible to minimize
security risks. In addition, the Smithsonian's omission of privately
funded projects from two key documents--its updated cost estimate of
facilities projects through 2013 and its capital plan--makes these
documents less transparent and comprehensive and thus of less value in
communicating the full scope and funding needs of projects for capital
decision making. The omission of private funds from these documents
also de-emphasizes the existing and potential role of private funds in
the Smithsonian's facilities strategy and the Smithsonian's flexibility
to raise and use private funds for these projects.
The Smithsonian's lack of resources to address urgent security and
facilities needs underscores the importance of the Board of Regents'
efforts to develop a more effective funding strategy. While the Board
of Regents has considered a variety of funding options, at this point
in time, it has yet to implement a strategy other than requesting
increased federal funds. Moreover, since the Board of Regents did not
analyze the nonfederal funding options in a comprehensive manner, it
lacks vital information needed to develop a funding strategy that goes
beyond federal funding.
Further delays in implementing a viable strategy to fund the
significant number of facilities projects at many Smithsonian
facilities increase the risks to these facilities' collections. At some
point, damage to priceless items may occur, and the ability of the
Smithsonian to meet its mission will decline. Notwithstanding that the
federal government has appropriated funds for facilities'
revitalization, maintenance, and security, the Smithsonian could raise
additional funds or use existing unrestricted trust funds for these
purposes. It would appear that the Board of Regents' stewardship role,
at a time of significant real property challenges and relatively
constrained federal funds, obligates them to consider providing more
private funds to meet the funding requirements of its overall mission.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making three recommendations to the Secretary of the Smithsonian
and two recommendations to the Board of Regents.
To ensure that the Smithsonian's museum and facility directors have the
information they need to work with OPS to identify, monitor, and
respond to changes in the security of their facilities, and to increase
the comprehensiveness of key documents used to present the
Smithsonian's long-term facilities needs and strategy, we recommend
that the Secretary of the Smithsonian:
* ensure that museum and facility directors are aware of and understand
the all-hazards risk assessment report for their facility, including
how it affects the prioritization of security projects;
* ensure that museum and facility directors receive daily information
related to security issues, including the number of security officers
assigned to the facility; and:
* include in the Smithsonian's estimate for facilities revitalization,
construction, and maintenance projects through 2013 and in the
Smithsonian's capital plan the full scope of planned projects and
information on planned funding sources--federal or private funds--for
each.
To address the Smithsonian's funding needs for facilities projects, we
recommend that the Board of Regents:
* analyze, in a more comprehensive manner, the eight proposed
nonfederal funding strategies, along with any additional strategies,
for its facilities projects, including developing a clearer explanation
of assumptions and incorporating the results of discussions with other
cultural organizations and a consideration of combining funding options
in this analysis; and:
* submit, following its completion of the comprehensive analysis, a
report to OMB and Congress that describes a funding strategy to meet
the needs of its revitalization, construction, and maintenance
projects, so that OMB and Congress can understand the steps the
Smithsonian is taking to meet these needs in addition to its requests
for federal funding.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Smithsonian for its official
review and comment. The Smithsonian concurred with the report's
recommendations and generally concurred with the report's findings,
including the strengths and challenges related to OFEO's efforts to
manage the Smithsonian's real property portfolio and the strengths and
challenges related to OPS's security efforts. Regarding our
recommendations for improving the Smithsonian's communication on
security issues, the Smithsonian stated that OPS's leadership
understands the importance of communication with the management and
staff of the facilities for which it provides security, and described
specific actions OPS would take to implement our recommendations.
Regarding our recommendations to the Board of Regents, the Smithsonian
stated that the Board of Regents' Committee on Facilities
Revitalization is working to address the Smithsonian's facilities needs
through further evaluation of potential funding options. The
Smithsonian stated that this committee is also planning to review
existing Smithsonian funding priorities to determine if any funds are
available to redirect toward facilities needs. Furthermore, the
Smithsonian stated that the result of these efforts will inform the
committee's plan to address the Smithsonian's facilities funding
requirement, which will be presented in draft form to the full Board of
Regents at its November 2007 meeting and in final form to OMB and
Congress by the end of the year.
Although the Smithsonian agreed with our recommendations, the
Smithsonian expressed concerns about several issues in the report. The
Smithsonian stated that we implied that the Smithsonian's private trust
funds offer a solution to the Smithsonian's facilities crisis and that
we reference the possibility of raising private funds to address
facilities needs when, according to the Smithsonian, both of these
approaches have difficulties associated with them. In general, we have
suggested that both of these approaches may have the potential to
increase the amount of funds available for the Smithsonian's
facilities--to some extent. Furthermore, we have concluded that the
difficulties associated with these approaches and alluded to by the
Smithsonian underscore the need for our recommendation that the Board
of Regents analyze a variety of funding options, many of which do not
depend on convincing donors to give funds for facilities' needs, and
develop a funding strategy.
The Smithsonian also stressed its position that the revitalization and
maintenance of federal facilities are federal responsibilities. We have
concluded that the Board of Regents' stewardship role, at a time of
significant real property challenges and relatively constrained federal
funds, obligates them to consider providing more private funds to meet
the funding requirements of its overall mission.
In addition, while the Smithsonian concurred with our recommendation to
include privately funded projects as well as federally funded projects
in its capital plan and cost estimate of facilities projects through
fiscal year 2013, the Smithsonian noted that much of this information
is already available to stakeholders in other documents. We have
concluded that, notwithstanding the fact that this information appears
in other documents, it is important to incorporate it into these two
documents, as these documents should comprehensively describe the
Smithsonian's long term facilities' funding needs and strategy. The
Smithsonian's full comments on our report and our more detailed
response to these comments can be found in appendix III.
In addition, the Smithsonian provided separate technical comments,
which we incorporated into the final report, where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees, the Chairman of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and the
Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian. We will also make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2843 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the condition of the Smithsonian’s facilities has
changed since our 2005 report, we interviewed the directors, Office of
Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) zone managers, and
building managers for 14 Smithsonian facilities to obtain information
on new facilities projects, continuing problems, and any adverse
effects on collections. In addition, we toured eight facilities
identified by the Smithsonian as having major revitalization projects
or additional facilities-related problems since our April 2005 report
to view facilities improvements or problems that have limited access to
or had adverse effects on collections. The facilities we toured were
the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum (Cooper-Hewitt Museum); Donald
W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, which houses the
National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum;
National Museum of African Art; National Museum of American History
Kenneth E. Behring Center; National Museum of the American Indian;
National Museum of Natural History (Museum of Natural History);
National Zoological Park (National Zoo); and the Smithsonian’s Suitland
campus, which includes the Cultural Resources Center, Garber Facility,
and Museum Support Center. The Garber Facility has about 40 buildings,
and the National Zoo has more than 40 buildings. To obtain information
on how the cost of Smithsonian facilities projects has changed since
our 2005 report, we reviewed the Smithsonian’s revised estimated costs
for major revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 and interviewed Smithsonian
officials.
To determine the steps the Smithsonian has taken to protect its assets
and the challenges it has experienced, we reviewed key security-related
documents, such as Smithsonian’s 2002 Disaster Management Program
Master Plan, 2004 All-Hazards Risk Assessment Report, and 2007 Disaster
Management Risk Mitigation Plan, Office of Protection Services (OPS)
policies and procedures, and the Interagency Security Committee’s key
security practices. We also interviewed appropriate Smithsonian
officials, including key personnel from OPS and the museum directors
and building managers of the facilities we visited to obtain
information on the security challenges OPS and each facility
experiences. To obtain information on the methodology and purpose of
some key security-related documents, we interviewed URS Corporation,
which performed the Smithsonian’s 2004 All-Hazards Risk Assessment
Report and 2007 Disaster Management Risk Mitigation Plan and Applied
Research Associates, which performed the Smithsonian’s 2002 Disaster
Management Program Master Plan. Additionally, we interviewed various
security organizations and committees on key practices for cultural
property protection. The security organizations and committees include
the American Association of Museums, APPA,[Footnote 42] ASIS
International’s Museum, Library and Cultural Properties
Council,[Footnote 43] the Federal Facilities Council, the International
Association of Museum Facility Administrators, and the International
Facility Management Association and its Museum/Cultural Institutions
Council. To obtain information on the Smithsonian’s security cost
trends from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we reviewed the
Smithsonian’s federal appropriations, obligations, and expenditures on
security programs. To obtain information on the Smithsonian’s security
officer levels, we analyzed monthly staffing reports from March 2003
through March 2007. We assessed the reliability of the security officer
data from the Smithsonian by interviewing knowledgeable agency
officials about data-collection methods, how the data is used, and
steps taken to test the data. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting on security officer
levels for March 2003 through March 2007.
To determine the steps the Smithsonian has taken to improve the
management of its real property portfolio, we reviewed our prior work
on this issue and a variety of Smithsonian documents related to its
real property asset management practices, including handbooks on
project management, operations and maintenance, and real estate. We
also reviewed Smithsonian documents related to capital planning and
master planning, such as the fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2012
Facilities Capital Program, the Museum of Natural History and the
National Zoo’s master plans, and minutes of the Capital Planning Board
meetings. To obtain information on the Smithsonian’s fiscal years 2002
through 2007 facilities capital and maintenance appropriations, we
reviewed the Smithsonian’s federal appropriations and spoke to
Smithsonian officials. To obtain information on the Smithsonian’s
fiscal years 2002 through 2007 private funds, we reviewed audited
financial statements and spoke to Smithsonian officials. We found this
data reliable for the purposes of reporting on the amount of the
Smithsonian’s federal appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2007
used for facilities maintenance, revitalization, and construction. To
obtain information on the progress of the Smithsonian’s inventory of
real property, we reviewed data from its real property information
system. We also reviewed monthly metrics reports to obtain information
on the Smithsonian’s capital and maintenance benchmarks used for
decision making. We also interviewed the director and chief of staff of
OFEO, several heads of the offices making up OFEO, and the staff
responsible for prioritizing both capital projects and minor repair and
maintenance. We also reviewed documents relevant to the management of
real property, such as Executive Order 13327, the Federal Real Property
Council’s Guidance for Asset Management, the General Services
Administration’s Federal Management Regulation: Real Property Asset
Management Guiding Principles, and the Office of Management and
Budget’s Capital Programming Guide. We also obtained information from
several facility organizations on key practices related to the
management of real property portfolios. These organizations include
APPA, the Federal Facilities Council, the International Association of
Museum Facility Administrators, and the International Facility
Management Association.
To determine the extent to which the Smithsonian developed and
implemented strategies to fund its revitalization, construction, and
maintenance projects, we reviewed materials developed by Smithsonian
management for the consideration from the Board of Regents’ ad-hoc
Committee on Facilities Revitalization, which included an analysis of
each of the nine funding options. In addition, we reviewed minutes of
the Board of Regents’ meetings that document efforts taken to develop
and implement facilities funding strategies. We interviewed Smithsonian
management and two members of the Board of Regents’ ad-hoc Committee on
Facilities Revitalization, including the chairman of this committee, to
obtain information on how the nine funding options were developed and
selected for implementation. To obtain information on other
organizations’ funding strategies for facilities projects, we spoke
with officials from the Department of the Interior’s National Park
Service, the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, the Corcoran
Gallery of Art, the National Building Museum, and the Phillips
Collection. We also reviewed the President’s fiscal year 2008 proposed
budget and the Smithsonian’s annual appropriations from fiscal years
2005 through 2007.
To address all of the above objectives, we also conducted site visits
at organizations in California and New York that have characteristics
similar to those of the Smithsonian, where we reviewed relevant
documents, toured facilities, and interviewed officials. In New York,
we visited the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of
Modern Art. In California, we visited the California Academy of
Sciences; the California State University Office of the Chancellor; San
Jose State University; San Francisco State University; the University
of California Office of the President; the University of California at
Berkeley; the University of California at San Francisco; and the
Zoological Society of San Diego, including the Wild Animal Park. We
selected these organizations because they all have some features in
common with the Smithsonian, including public and private funding,
capital projects, real property portfolio make-up, and organizational
mission. We selected New York to efficiently go to two large and
heavily visited museums with characteristics similar to Smithsonian
museums. We selected California because several facilities’ management
experts recommended that a university system with old buildings and
geographically dispersed campuses would have similar characteristics to
the Smithsonian, and in California we could efficiently visit the
University of California system and the California State University
system, both of which meet these criteria, as well as two other
organizations with characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian:
a large and highly visited zoo and a science academy undergoing a major
capital construction project.
We conducted our work in New York City; San Diego and San Francisco;
and Washington, D.C., from September 2006 to September 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Smithsonian's Efforts to Implement Key Security Practices:
* Allocating resources using risk management. In order to allocate
resources more effectively to manage risk, in 2002, OPS hired a
contractor to develop a disaster management program master plan that
combines disaster and emergency management planning and continuity of
operations at all levels of the Smithsonian. The program addresses the
three phases of a disaster or emergency: preparedness, response, and
recovery. One aspect of the preparedness phase of the program
recommended developing a risk assessment and risk management program.
In order to develop the recommended risk management plan, in 2004, the
Smithsonian contracted for an all-hazards risk assessment report, which
includes individual assessments for over 30 Smithsonian facilities and
was completed in 2005.[Footnote 44] These reports identify the primary
risks to each facility and also describe both the key observed
vulnerabilities and risks and the key risk reduction and mitigation
recommendations proposed for each facility to help the Smithsonian
prioritize security projects. As a supplement to this report, in Spring
2006, the contractor completed a strategy that included specific
recommendations on how to use the Smithsonian’s capital and maintenance
funds to implement future security projects and operational changes
aimed at reducing the risks for Smithsonian facilities. From this
strategy, the Smithsonian will develop a new performance metric to
track risk mitigation efforts across its facilities. Many of the
protective measures identified in the all-hazards risk assessment
report have been implemented, will be addressed in the capital program,
or can be integrated into an ongoing nonsecurity capital project. The
Smithsonian uses these measures to determine the appropriate capital
improvements, maintenance projects, and operational procedures to
reasonably reduce the risk to Smithsonian staff, visitors, collections,
and facilities.
* Leveraging security technology. The Smithsonian’s Physical Security
Plan primarily consists of two separate programs for mitigating the
risks to the institution’s staff, visitors, collections, and
facilities. The two programs, the security system modernization program
and the anti-terrorism program, both leverage security technology to
protect the Smithsonian’s assets. The security system modernization
program consists of measures that primarily support cultural property
protection through the installation of electronic security systems. The
Smithsonian uses a wide variety of technologies to meet the security
system modernization program requirements. Smithsonian officials
reported installing closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) and access
entry technologies to augment existing security systems or establish a
new program at some facilities. In addition, the security system
modernization program plans to install additional electronic systems in
several other Smithsonian facilities as soon as more funds become
available. The anti-terrorism program consists of physical security
measures and procedures that are primarily intended to mitigate the
risk of a terrorist attack against the Smithsonian. The anti-terrorism
program includes technologies such as perimeter vehicle barriers, CCTV,
emergency voice systems, window blast film, and electronic screening of
visitors and mail. According to a Smithsonian official, the
technologies used for its physical security plan allow OPS to extend
the capabilities of security staff and to improve facility security.
* Performance measurement and testing. Smithsonian officials stated
that the Smithsonian follows Interagency Security Committee (ISC)
guidelines for setting performance measures for anti-terrorism measures
it has implemented, in addition to performing some testing on its own
security practices. As mentioned above, the Smithsonian is developing a
measure to track the funding and implementation of recommended risk
mitigation projects. Also, the Smithsonian designed and tested its own
vehicle barriers and uses computer modeling to determine the best
mitigation practices. Regarding OPS operations, the Smithsonian logs
the number of visitor complaints on security staff and security
practices at all facilities. To test its disaster response plans, the
Smithsonian conducts regular mock evacuations. While many of these mock
evacuations are done without visitors present, according to Smithsonian
officials, in May 2007, OPS conducted a public evacuation drill of the
Castle when visitors were present, and a similar drill is planned for
the National Zoo. Following a mock or an actual evacuation, the
Smithsonian conducts sessions to identify areas of improvement. For
example, in June 2006 the Smithsonian had to close facilities affected
by flooding along the National Mall. Following these closures, the
Smithsonian held meetings about improving facility evacuations. As a
result, the Smithsonian altered its Disaster Management Plan because of
lessons learned from the event, thereby demonstrating quickness in
response and action.
* Strategic human capital management. To strategically manage human
capital as it relates to security, the Smithsonian has instituted
training courses on terrorism awareness, emergency procedures, and
shelter-in-place procedures for its security staff. Before September
11, 2001, security officer training was a two-week program; now the
program is five weeks long, providing customer service training and
instruction on the use of magnetometers, X-rays, and bag searches.
* Aligning assets to mission. Smithsonian officials stated that none of
its buildings on the National Mall are excess or underutilized, and,
therefore, opportunities to align assts to mission by reducing excess
or underutilized property in order to reduce overall vulnerabilities
are limited. However, according to Smithsonian officials, any future
building disposals will include the consideration of reducing security
costs in order to more effectively use security resources at fully
utilized buildings.
* Information sharing and coordination. Smithsonian officials reported
sharing and coordinating information with several external stakeholders
through periodic meetings with many government and private sector
organizations. As a national icon located on the National Mall, the
Smithsonian coordinates with several law enforcement entities,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
Homeland Security; the U.S. Park Police, the Metropolitan Police
Department, and a local Joint Terrorism Task Force.[Footnote 45] In
addition, OPS also shares information with government and private
sector security groups including ASIS International’s Museum, Library
and Cultural Properties Council, Interagency Security Committee, and
the National Monuments and Icon Sector of the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Smithsonian Institution:
Smithsonian Institution:
Cristian Samper:
Acting Secretary:
September 19, 2007:
Mr. David M. Walker:
Comptroller General:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
On behalf of the Smithsonian Institution, thank you for this
opportunity to respond to your report Smithsonian Institution: Funding
Challenges Affect Facilities Conditions and Security, Endangering
Collections. We are pleased that the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) expended significant time and effort over the last year to meet
with our staff, tour our facilities, and review our documentation in
order to understand the magnitude and complexity of the Smithsonian's
facilities and security challenges. We are also pleased that GAO
recognizes the significant strides we have made in improving the
management of our facilities.
We accept all of the recommendations outlined in your report and agree
to:
1. Improve the level of communication between the Office of Protection
Services (OPS) and our museum and facility directors by making them
more aware of the multi-hazard risk assessment and its impact on the
prioritization of security projects and providing them with daily
information related to security issues, including the number of
security officers assigned to their facilities; and:
2. Increase the comprehensiveness of documents that describe our
facilities' funding needs by adding private trust funds to the funding
sources listed on our five-year capital plan and our estimate for
facilities revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects
through 2013.
In addition, the Smithsonian Board of Regents is already in the process
of addressing GAO's third recommendation and is:
3. Analyzing more comprehensively additional strategies for addressing
our facilities needs. (As requested, the Board of Regents will submit a
report to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress by the end
of 2007 that describes a funding strategy to meet the Smithsonian's
needs for revitalization, construction, and maintenance.)
Smithsonian Facilities: Challenges and Successes:
As GAO learned over the course of its 12-month review, the Smithsonian
is responsible for the operations, maintenance and repair of hundreds
of structures located on the National Mall and in the Washington
metropolitan area, but also in many other locations around the United
States and the world. This family of facilities includes National
Historic Landmarks, research labs, collections storage areas, office
buildings and a wide array of other structures, all possessing a unique
set of expected functions and maintenance and security challenges.
Keeping pace with the constant daily needs of these facilities is the
full-time job of thousands of Smithsonian employees, each of whom takes
pride in the scientific discoveries, educational endeavors, and
stimulating experiences that these buildings make possible. Ensuring
the fitness and safety of our facilities—and the people and collections
that are housed within them—is one of the most important
responsibilities that the Smithsonian owes the American people.
We are pleased that you recognized the significant strides made by the
Smithsonian's Office of Facilities, Engineering and Operations (OFEO)
since GAO's last report. Since 2005, OFEO has completed the integration
of our facilities functions into one office, greatly improving
efficiency and coordination of our efforts in this area. This
reinvigorated structure has enabled OFEO to perform a critical assets
inventory of over 10,000 operating components, each with work plans, to
enable our use of a Reliability Centered Maintenance approach. This has
resulted in a reduction in failures of major equipment by 20 percent.
We have also initiated a massive energy conservation effort that has
resulted in more than $5 million in savings over the past 18 months.
These successes led OFEO to be named the 2006 National Winner of the
APPA (Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers) Award for
Excellence in Facilities Management and enabled the Institution to
achieve the highest rating by OMB on the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) evaluations for both the Facilities Capital and the Facilities
Operations and Maintenance programs.
These accomplishments aside, we acknowledge GAO's findings here and in
its 2005 report that we continue to face significant challenges in
addressing the $2.5 billion of revitalization, construction and
maintenance requirements that are on hold due to a lack of funds. These
financial limitations also make more difficult the critical task of
ensuring the security of our buildings and the safety of our visitors,
staff and collections.
The examples of facilities problems cited in GAO's report are but some
of the structural, mechanical and aesthetic needs that cannot be met
because we simply do not have the funds to do so. Without sufficient
financial resources, failing mechanical systems cannot be replaced,
recurring roof leaks cannot be eradicated, and worn fixtures cannot be
upgraded. Our current funding enables the Institution to respond only
to the most critical of needs: those that could threaten public safety,
cause damage to collections, or pose significant limits on public
access or operability. This focus leaves out the necessary routine
maintenance that prevents small problems from growing into big ones
that ultimately cause more damage and cost more to fix, and delays the
planned replacement of aged building systems before they reach the
breakdown stage.
Yet, if additional funding could be secured, the Smithsonian has proven
that it would be able to wisely and efficiently spend it to fix these
problems. Over the last five years, our obligation rate for facilities
capital projects has averaged above 90 percent, while the obligation
rate for facilities maintenance (one-year appropriation) has been
greater than 99.9 percent. This shows that even with limited funding,
the Smithsonian has managed to resolve a number of significant
facilities problems and could do more with increased funds. Some recent
highlights include roof repairs at the National Museum of Natural
History to correct leaks into collections areas as well as offices;
repair of numerous leaks in the Quadrangle roof garden that were
threatening collections and galleries; and replacement of high-voltage
distribution systems at the Conservation Research Center. We have also
paid significant attention to fire protection needs at the National
Zoological Park, installing new systems at the Rock Creek and Front
Royal facilities. Further fire protection projects at the Zoo are in
the Capital Plan, and all are scheduled to be completed over the next
five years.
Facilities Revitalization is a Priority of the Smithsonian Board of
Regents:
The Smithsonian Board of Regents takes very seriously the Institution's
facilities crisis and is currently engaged in a significant effort to
address it. As GAO mentioned in its report, in June 2005 the
Smithsonian Board of Regents established an Ad-Hoc Committee on
Facilities Revitalization to evaluate funding strategies to address
this issue. In June 2007, the Board voted to make this group a standing
committee of the Board of Regents—an acknowledgement of this
challenge's importance to the future health of the Institution.
Since this Committee was made permanent, members have met with senior
staff to evaluate the range of revitalization, construction and
maintenance needs and to assess the prioritization of these
requirements. This summer, at the request of the Committee, senior
Smithsonian staff updated and augmented the funding options papers
described by GAO in this report and researched additional funding ideas
that were suggested by the Regents and other sources. These funding
options were discussed by the Committee during its September meeting
and are on the agenda for its next meeting in October. At that time,
the Committee will evaluate each option individually and in
combination. In the interim, the Committee is reviewing facilities
funding strategies undertaken by similar entities and will reach out to
external stakeholders to generate further ideas. In addition, the
Committee will review existing Smithsonian funding priorities to
determine if any funds are available to redirect toward facilities
needs. The results of these efforts will inform the Committee's plan to
address the facilities requirement. This plan, which was previously
requested by Senate Rules Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), will be
presented in draft form to the full Board of Regents at its November
meeting, and, as requested by GAO, in final form to OMB and Congress by
the end of the year.
Importance of Federal Role in Maintaining Smithsonian Facilities:
While the plan will provide a blueprint for how the Smithsonian can
supplement government funding to address this crisis, the federal role
in ensuring the welfare of the Institution's buildings cannot be
overstated. In the years after Congress passed the law establishing the
Smithsonian in 1846, the federal government began transferring existing
objects and directing that new ones be housed at the Smithsonian.
Starting in 1858, in acknowledgement of the costs associated with this
responsibility, the Congress began providing an annual appropriation to
the Smithsonian for the care of what became known as the National
Collection. Since then the size of the National Collection—which
includes everything from historic artifacts to priceless paintings to
rare animals—has grown to include more than 136 million objects,
artworks and specimens. More than 23 million visitors came through our
doors last year to glimpse the wonder and wisdom contained in these
precious objects and living things. Since the safety and soundness of
our buildings is directly related to our ability to successfully
preserve, study, and display these collections, it is only fitting that
taxpayer dollars be used toward this noble purpose. The Smithsonian is
grateful to the Congress and the people of the United States for the
annual appropriation it receives each year, a large portion of which
goes toward operating and maintaining our buildings.
Limits of Smithsonian Trust Funds in Addressing Facilities Funding
Challenges:
As a Federal trust instrumentality, the Smithsonian also relies
significantly on private funding to carry out its mission. Monies
brought in from donors and revenue-generating enterprises make up about
a third of the Institution's annual revenues. Although GAO has implied
in its report that these trust funds offer a solution to our facilities
crisis, a review of the current uses of these funds shows the
difficulties associated with this approach. The majority of Smithsonian
trust funds are given by a donor for a specific purpose and thus cannot
be diverted to pay for building operations, repairs or maintenance. The
remaining unrestricted trust funds budgeted annually, about $58 million
in FY 2006, cover administrative and mission-related costs that either
cannot be paid for with, or are not completely supported by, Federal
funds. And while a portion of these unrestricted funds does consist of
an annual payout from our endowment, prudent financial management
guidelines dictate that this amount should not exceed 5 percent of the
five-year average endowment value (a formula that currently yields an
annual payout of about $13 million). Additionally, drawing down the
unrestricted endowment principal in a special payout would reduce the
annual future payout, providing only a limited one- time infusion of
funds. In sum, using unrestricted trust funds for building repairs and
maintenance provides illusory benefits because it would require the
Institution to eliminate multiple programs and positions for which
there are no funding alternatives, compromising our educational and
scientific mission while having almost no impact on the $2.5 billion
facilities requirement.
GAO's report also references the possibility of raising private funds
specifically to address facilities needs. While the Smithsonian is
certainly open to the idea of soliciting and accepting gifts from
donors for this purpose, the lack of success we and other Institutions
have had with this approach indicates that it may only have limited
value. While donors have given generously toward the construction of
new facilities and major enhancements of existing facilities, we have
found that most donors believe that the Smithsonian's operations,
revitalization, and maintenance costs are a Federal responsibility. In
fact, many are more likely to make a gift if it can enhance a project
already supported by Federal funds.
The Smithsonian and many other public and nonprofit institutions have
found that donors make gifts to institutions primarily to support
programs for which they have a passion or to establish a legacy that
will benefit future generations. As a result, most institutions with
comparable facilities maintenance and operations funding challenges
have not been able to attract donors who are willing to give
substantially toward repairing damaged roofs or replacing aging wiring
without being able to relate this to a program or project that reflects
the programmatic mission of that institution. In April 2007, the
Smithsonian commissioned an independent philanthropic management
consultant to survey similar nonprofit and public entities on this
topic. The consultant's report concluded that "Although several
institutions noted that the need to improve infrastructure and address
the costs of deferred maintenance is an ongoing concern, all reported
that effort to secure support for these purposes has been unsuccessful,
except when embedded in programmatic improvements." So while the
Smithsonian remains open to investigating the level of interest of
private donors to address our revitalization and maintenance
requirements, we do not believe that this option alone will suffice to
solve the $2.5 billion problem.
Smithsonian Security Record is Strong Even With Limited Resources:
While we agree to implement GAO's recommendations regarding
communication with directors about our security operations, we believe
that our security and safety record is outstanding even with the
personnel shortages and funding challenges we face. The Smithsonian's
Office of Protection Services (OPS) and the professional security
officers that make up its force are directly responsible for the safety
and security of the people and collections that are housed in our
buildings. Although we take seriously the individual incidents that GAO
pointed out in its report, given the hundreds of buildings OPS is
responsible for monitoring, the thousands of people who visit and work
in our buildings each day, and the millions of collections we house, we
believe the OPS security record is commendable. Incidents of theft and
other crimes are extremely rare, as evidenced by our Total Recordable
Crimes Rate, which is well below the average for museums and zoos.
Responses to emergencies are swift and professional, such as the 2006
mall-wide evacuation that required Smithsonian security personnel to
shelter-in-place thousands of people fleeing a Fourth of July
thunderstorm. And design elements and planning for natural disasters,
terrorist attacks, and other major incidents are done to the highest
standards, leading other organizations to cite our Glass Hazard
Mitigation Program and our Mall-Wide Perimeter Barrier program as
benchmarks in the field.
However, recruiting and retaining qualified security personnel to carry
out these duties remains a major challenge and one that we are working
to resolve. As part of this effort, the Smithsonian plans to commission
a study of the security staffing levels in our facilities that will
yield a plan outlining appropriate staffing for high- and low-risk
operations. We will continue to seek innovative ways to recruit and
retain talented individuals for these important positions.
The OPS leadership also understands the importance of meaningful and
regular communication with the management and staff of the facilities
for which it provides security. Senior OPS officials already meet
yearly with each facility director to discuss security challenges and
changes for the coming year, and building security managers and
officers are available on a daily basis to respond to questions or
concerns. In response to GAO's recommendations, the OPS Director will
meet one additional time per year with each facility director to
discuss specific security plans and issues. While OPS distributed the
most recent Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment to all facility directors, it
is clear from GAO's report that not all directors were aware of that
document. Therefore the agenda for these bi-annual meetings will also
include a discussion of that risk assessment. In response to GAO's
concerns about a lack of available information on security staffing
levels at museums and other facilities, OPS will now send a daily
security roster to each facility and museum director.
Role of Trust Funding in Smithsonian Capital Plan and Overall
Facilities Budget:
The Smithsonian agrees with and will implement GAO's recommendation to
incorporate more trust fund information in the next iteration of the
Capital Plan, which will support the FY 2009 budget request when it is
presented to Congress in February 2008. Based on this information, the
Institution will recalculate the total requirement for capital and
maintenance.
While we agree this approach will prove beneficial to internal and
external stakeholders, we note, however, that much of this information
is already available to them. From the time major projects with private
funding are presented for Smithsonian management approval through
execution of each project, full and detailed Federal and trust funding
information is provided to decision makers, both internally and
externally. For example, the Capital Plan already includes projects
that receive private funds, and Federal budget justifications in the
past several years for such projects as the National Museum of American
History revitalization and the National Zoological Park Asia Trail
project reference the trust funds associated with those projects.
Further, the Institution provides very detailed information on the
Federal and trust funding projections for major projects in the Exhibit
300s provided each year to OMB. In addition, a variety of reports are
provided to internal stakeholders at a number of levels, including the
summary "tripod" charts, executive and oversight committee
presentations, and the operational review presentation to the Secretary
three times a year. Examples of some of these documents were provided
to GAO during its review. External stakeholders such as OMB and
Congress receive information on required funding—from all sources—as
part of the project authorization process (for construction/expansion
projects), as well as part of the appropriations process (in the budget
narratives and during hearings and follow-up questions for the record).
External review agencies such as the National Capital Planning
Commission also receive information on total project funding in the
annual submission for the Federal Capital Improvements Program. As
these examples attest, the Institution is committed to ensuring that
stakeholders at all levels have complete funding information to
facilitate appropriate decisions in the management of its real property
inventory.
We appreciate GAO's efforts to conduct this thorough and fair review of
our facilities and security responsibilities and funding needs. There
is no question that the $2.5 billion facilities requirement is one of
the most important challenges the Smithsonian faces. We must not lose
sight, however, of the need to continue advancements and improvements
in our programs as well, an area in which our donors have been
extraordinarily generous. We pledge to do our part to address these
significant funding challenges, and the Smithsonian and the Board of
Regents look forward to working with Congress to tackle these issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Cristian Samper:
Acting Secretary:
The following are GAO’s comments on the Smithsonian Institution’s
letter dated September 19, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. The Smithsonian cited in its letter some accomplishments of its
facilities management approach. While our report discusses steps the
Smithsonian has taken to improve the management of its real property
portfolio, we did not evaluate all of the accomplishments cited in the
Smithsonian’s letter.
2. The Smithsonian stressed in its response that both the Smithsonian
and donors believe that the revitalization and maintenance of the
Smithsonian’s facilities are federal responsibilities. We recognize
that the federal government has played—and is likely to continue to
play—an important role in funding the Smithsonian’s facilities needs.
However, as the Smithsonian has not received sufficient funds from the
federal government to meet its facilities needs in recent years, and in
light of the threat posed by many deteriorating facilities to the
Smithsonian’s collections and the public’s access to these collections,
we have concluded that the Board of Regents’ stewardship role, at a
time of significant real property challenges and relatively constrained
federal funds, obligates them to consider providing more private funds
to meet the funding requirements of its overall mission.
3. The Smithsonian expressed concern that we implied that the
Smithsonian’s private trust funds offer a solution to the Smithsonian’s
facilities crisis. In our report, we pointed out that unrestricted
trust funds could be used for facilities needs, including maintenance,
revitalization, or security needs, but have not been used for such
purposes. We recognize that such funds made up 6 percent of the
Smithsonian’s operating budget in fiscal year 2006 and went towards
other expenses. We did not analyze the Smithsonian’s decision-making on
how it distributed these unrestricted funds; however, it appears that
the stated plan of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents’ Committee on
Facilities’ Revitalization to review existing funding priorities to
determine if any funds are available to redirect toward facilities
needs is a positive step. The focus of our report is on the need for
the Smithsonian to develop new strategies to raise additional revenue
in order to significantly increase the amount of unrestricted funds
that are available to be used for facilities needs.
4. The Smithsonian expressed concern that we referenced the possibility
of raising private funds to address facilities needs, and the
Smithsonian stressed the difficulty of raising funds from donors for
the operations, revitalization, and maintenance of facilities. The
difficulty described by the Smithsonian of raising such funds from
donors underscores the need for the Smithsonian to develop new funding
strategies—that do not rely on individual donors’ preferences—to raise
revenue for these needs. For example, most of the eight funding options
that the ad hoc committee on facilities revitalization considered (in
addition to the option of seeking increased federal funds) and that we
describe in our report do not depend on convincing donors to provide
funds for facilities. Indeed, this difficulty demonstrates the
importance of our recommendation that the Board analyze these eight
proposed funding strategies in a more comprehensive manner in order to
develop and implement a funding strategy. At the same time, the finding
of the Smithsonian’s commissioned report on fund-raising that all 12
organizations surveyed reported that the effort to secure support for
deferred maintenance has been unsuccessful, except when embedded in
programmatic improvements, describes both a perceived difficulty in
securing private funds for deferred maintenance in general, but also
the potential to do so when such projects are embedded in programmatic
improvements.
5. While the Smithsonian concurred with our recommendation to include
privately funded projects as well as federally funded projects in its
capital plan and cost estimate of facilities projects through fiscal
year 2013, the Smithsonian noted that much of this information is
already available to stakeholders in other documents and during
processes such as congressional hearings. We recognize the Smithsonian
includes information on privately funded projects in various documents
that go to OMB, Congress, and other stakeholders. However, given that
the capital plan is the primary document that defines the Smithsonian’s
long-term capital strategy, and that the Smithsonian has used its cost
estimate for facilities’ projects through 2013 to describe its long-
term funding needs for facilities to Congress and other stakeholders,
it is important that private trust funds be included in these documents
so that the documents will provide a comprehensive picture of the full
scope of facilities needs and the Smithsonian’s long-term strategy for
meeting those needs.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact: Mark L. Goldstein, (202)512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgements: In addition to the contact named above, David
Sausville, Assistant Director; Brandon Haller, Susan Michael-Smith;
Alwynne Wilbur; Carrie Wilks; and Adam Yu made key contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Smithsonian Institution: Facilities Management Reorganization
Is Progressing, but Funding Remains a Challenge, GAO-05-369
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2005).
[2] The Smithsonian’s private trust funds are divided into two
categories: restricted and unrestricted. Restricted trust funds must be
used for specified purposes. Unrestricted trust funds can be used to
support any Smithsonian activity.
[3] GAO, Smithsonian Institution: Funding for Real Property Needs
Remains a Challenge, GAO-07-725T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007).
[4] GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003); and Federal Real Property: Progress
Made toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to
Hamper Reform, GAO-07-349 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007).
[5] For this report, the term museum and facility directors refers to
directors of museums, directors of nonmuseum facilities, such as
research and storage centers, and key facilities and security managers
of these museums and facilities.
[6] GAO, Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate
Federal Agencies’ Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key
Practices, GAO-05-49 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004).
[7] A trust is a fiduciary relationship involving a right of property
held by the trustee for the benefit of another.
[8] The three senators are appointed by the President of the Senate,
the three representatives are appointed by the Speaker of the House,
and nine citizens are appointed by joint resolution of Congress—two
from the District of Columbia and seven from the states.
[9] The Udvar-Hazy Center near Washington Dulles International Airport
is the companion facility to the Air and Space Museum on the National
Mall and is being built in two phases. Phase I opened in December 2003
and provides enough space for the Smithsonian to display thousands of
aviation and space artifacts. Phase II will include a restoration
hangar, archives, collections processing unit, conservation laboratory,
and collections storage facility.
[10] Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress to study
the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino and
whether the museum should be located within the Smithsonian. See S.
500, 110th Cong. (2007); and H.R. 512, 110th Cong. (2007).
[11] GAO-05-49.
[12] In October 1995, the President signed Executive Order 12977 to
establish ISC, which is chaired by the Department of Homeland Security
and has representation from all of the major federal real property
holding agencies. ISC has three primary security responsibilities for
nonmilitary activities: (1) establish policies for security in and
protection of federal facilities; (2) develop and evaluate security
standards for federal facilities, develop a strategy for ensuring
compliance with such standards, and oversee the implementation of
appropriate security measures in federal facilities; and (3) take such
actions as may be necessary to enhance the quality and effectiveness of
security and protection of federal facilities.
[13] The Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO)
consists of six offices, including Planning and Project Management;
Engineering, Design, and Construction; Facilities Management and
Reliability; Protection Services; Safety, Health and Environmental
Management; and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Facilities
Operations.
[14] According to Smithsonian officials, for fiscal year 2004, the
Smithsonian’s budget justification to Congress was realigned to
accommodate facilities integration from the museums, other facilities,
and the National Zoo, as well as to reorganize the resources into the
categories of facilities maintenance, facilities operations, security
and support, and facilities capital.
[15] According to Smithsonian officials, the Smithsonian disputes the
IRC report’s finding that overall private fund-raising declined during
the former secretary’s tenure.
[16] The legislation authorizing the construction of the National
Museum of African Art referred to a center for Eastern art or studies.
See 20 U.S.C. § 50 note. The Smithsonian Quadrangle complex houses the
National Museum of African Art, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, S.
Dillon Ripley Center, an auditorium, offices, and the Enid A. Haupt
Garden. On July 28, 1982, the Smithsonian entered into an agreement to
name the western half of the Quadrangle complex the Arthur M. Sackler
Gallery, which was to be dedicated to Eastern Art.
[17] In addition to significant collections from the United States, the
Museum of the American Indian’s collection also contains items from
throughout the Western Hemisphere.
[18] In this condensate system, steam is piped to humidifiers located
throughout the Quadrangle complex, which inject the steam into the air
flow to provide humidification. However, when these pipes periodically
clog up with metallic sediment, the steam turns into water and leaks
through pipe joints.
[19] The law that authorized the National Air and Space Museum Stephen
F Udvar-Hazy Center provided that no appropriated funds could be used
to pay for construction expenses. See 20 U.S.C. § 77 note.
[20] According to Smithsonian officials, a small amount of unrestricted
trust funds have been used towards the salaries of some facilities’
maintenance managers. According to Smithsonian officials, restricted
trust funds have not been available for maintenance, as donors are not
interested in giving money towards facilities’ maintenance and do not
donate funds for this purpose. The Smithsonian recently commissioned a
benchmarking survey on fund-raising for facilities; all 12 respondents
to the survey reported that efforts to secure support for deferred
maintenance have been unsuccessful, except when embedded in
programmatic improvements.
[21] A master plan is a proposal of a comprehensive renovation or
expansion of a complex that aligns the physical plant with the
organization’s strategic goals. It includes proposals to make the
complex conform to current codes and meet technology and security
requirements. This process can also involve upgrading and replacing
major building systems, including the electrical, plumbing, fire
suppression, and heating and air conditioning systems; reinforcing the
complex’s structural integrity; and removing asbestos. Master plans
also identify changes in building use and expansion requirements to
meet mission needs.
[22] According to Smithsonian officials, OPS consulted with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the methodologies and consultants
to use for the 2005 all-hazards risk assessment report. For a
methodology, FEMA recommended its Risk Management Series Publication
452. For consultants, FEMA recommended the entity used to create the
FEMA 452 Publication.
[23] According to Smithsonian officials, it is the position of the
Smithsonian that the security of facilities is a federal
responsibility, based on an historical understanding as well as
accepted practice among federal entities. While Congress does
appropriate funds every year for security expenses, the Smithsonian
could raise additional revenue or use unrestricted trust funds for its
security expenses.
[24] GAO, Federal Law Enforcement: Selected Issues in Human Capital
Management, GAO-03-1034T (Washington D.C.: July 23, 2003).
[25] The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal
agencies to consider the effect of their actions on historic properties
and to undertake planning and actions necessary to minimize harm to the
historic property. The Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act of
2003, 20 U.S.C. § 75b note, states that in carrying out projects in the
District of Columbia that are subject to the review and approval of the
National Capital Planning commission, the Smithsonian Institution shall
be deemed to be an agency for purposes of compliance with regulations
promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant
to section 106 of the NHPA. The standards require owners to maintain
the original structure, fabric, and character of the site (both
interior and exterior) when making additions or upgrades.
[26] This prohibition was included in the Smithsonian’s appropriations
acts for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. (Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat,
3089 (2004); Public Law 109-54, 119 Stat. 545 (2005). The Smithsonian’s
appropriations acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 contained a
similar prohibition, except that for these years, approval to close
such facilities was required from the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents
acting on recommendations from the Science Commission rather than from
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. (Public Law 107-63,
115 Stat. 461 (2001); Public Law 108-7,117 Stat. 11 (2003); Public Law
108-108; 117 Stat. 1298 (2003).
[27] OFEO officials stated that they are not attempting to reconfigure
spaces that are not being renovated to meet the space guidelines, as
this is not a high priority, but that moving forward, renovations of
existing space will incorporate these guidelines.
[28] In addition to the performance measures, the 24 data elements
include elements designed to identify the property and describe the
property’s type, use, status, size, value, and restrictions.
[29] Under OFEO’s prioritization matrix, each project is assigned one
of four condition levels (catastrophic, critical, routine, and can
defer) and one of five project types (shell/system failure, code
compliance/security, nonroutine capital repairs, energy/operational
efficiency, and alternations and modifications). This assignment
determines the project’s priority code, which may be from one (top
priority for the budget year in which funding is sought) to five
(lowest priority).
[30] GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities’ Implementation of Capital
Planning Principles Is Mixed, GAO-07-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23,
2007); GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998); OMB, Capital
Programming Guide (Version 2.0) Supplement to OMB Circular A-11, part
7: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets (Washington,
D.C., June 2006).
[31] OMB’s revisions to Circular A-11 also attempt to address the
government’s shortcomings in capital planning.
[32] According to Smithsonian officials, this amount is undergoing
additional review and may increase following the addition of more
buildings to the equation.
[33] The Smithsonian’s Capital Planning Board is made up of the chief
financial officer (chairperson); deputy secretary and chief operating
officer; under secretaries for Science and Art; chief executive officer
of Business Ventures; chief information officer; general counsel;
director of Policy and Analysis; and OFEO director.
[34] The Smithsonian submits its 5-year capital plan to Congress as
part of its annual budget justification. In recent work on capital
planning, in 2007, we provided a matter for congressional consideration
that Congress require agencies to develop comprehensive, long-term
capital plans and submit them for congressional review in order to
ensure that Congress is receiving the capital planning information it
needs to make informed decisions. See GAO-07-274.
[35] According to a Smithsonian official, at its June 2007 meeting, the
board approved that the ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization
become a standing committee.
[36] While Congress does appropriate funds every year for the
revitalization, maintenance and security of facilities, the Smithsonian
could raise additional revenue or use existing unrestricted trust funds
for these purposes.
[37] 7Specifically, the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget proposal
for the Smithsonian’s appropriation proposed $107,100,000 for
facilities capital, which includes funding for facilities projects, and
$571,347,000 for salaries and expenses, which includes facilities
maintenance.
[38] The Smithsonian’s general admission fee program estimate of $57.6
million assumes about 7.8 million visitors and 540 new memberships.
Visitor admission fees range from $3 to $10, and memberships are $16.
[39] According to Smithsonian officials, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum was
already charging admission fees when it joined the Smithsonian. In
addition, it is located in New York City, where admission fees for
museums are common.
[40] In 1996 Congress established an experimental initiative called the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which was scheduled to expire
on December 31, 2005. The program focused on the activities of four
land management agencies: the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Agriculture’s
Forest Service. Under the fee demonstration program, the participating
agencies were authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at
a number of sites to enhance visitor services and to address a backlog
of needs for maintenance and repair, among other uses. New authority,
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, was enacted by Congress
as part of the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and the
program is authorized for 10 years.
[41] The First Triennial Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2006 is the
most recent report to Congress on the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program ended in December
of 2004 and was replaced by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act.
[42] APPA is an association for educational facilities professionals,
formerly called the Association of Physical Plant Administrators.
[43] Founded in 1955 as the American Society for Industrial Security
(ASIS), the organization officially changed its named to ASIS
International in 2002. ASIS International is a not-for-profit
organization, disseminating information and educational materials to
enhance security knowledge, practice, and performance.
[44] OPS consulted with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
on the methodologies and consultants to use for the 2005 all-hazards
risk assessment report. For a methodology, FEMA recommended its Risk
Management Series Publication 452. For consultants, FEMA recommended
the entity used to create the FEMA 452 Publication.
[45] The National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) is an effort by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation to coordinate the efforts of local
joint-terrorism task forces in 100 cities nationwide. Local joint
terrorism task forces include various local and state law enforcement
entities and federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland
Security and the Central Intelligence Agency. NJTTF was created to
enhance the FBI’s ability to promote coordinated terrorism
investigations between its field offices and with its counterparts in
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and other federal
agencies.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: